DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

139(1) of the IT Act, which is necessary to claim deduction.” 4. The grounds raised by the assessee in C.O. No.2/Hyd/2023 read as under : “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in objecting the order of ld.CIT(A) granting relief on claim of exemption under section 10AA of the Act, which was disallowed

PONNAPULA SULOCHANA, L/R OF LATE PONNAPULA SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of loss claimed while passing order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that return filed under Section 153A during the AY 2016-17 takes the place of the original return under Section 139

PONAPULA SULOCHANA LR LATE P SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of loss claimed while passing order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that return filed under Section 153A during the AY 2016-17 takes the place of the original return under Section 139

SHRI GAYATRI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of loss claimed while passing order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that return filed under Section 153A during the AY 2016-17 takes the place of the original return under Section 139

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

139(1) of the Act but sought to raise such claim for the first time in the return filed in response to the notice under Section 153A of the Act. The AO disallowed

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, on the ground that, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the 6 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture Act, if such claim is not made in the original return of income filed under Section 139

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, on the ground that, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the 6 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture Act, if such claim is not made in the original return of income filed under Section 139

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

section 139(1) of the Act, i.e., up to the “due date” of 31/10/2013, disallowed its claim for carry forward

FEDERATION OF AP COOPERATIVE URBAN BANKS AND CREDIT SOCIETIES LIMITED HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. In this regard, it is crucial to refer to provisions of sections 143(1) (a), which is to the following effect: “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowance\nof deduction u/s 801A(4) in terms of provision of section\n80AC, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in giving her\nfinding that deduction not claimed in original return u/s\n139(1) cannot be denied if claimed pursuant to notice\nu/s 153A.\nii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2018, declaring an income of Rs.141,83,11,120/-, and “book profit” under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 230,21,15,364/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, on various issues, viz. business purchases, deduction claimed under section 801A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

disallowance\nof deduction u/s 801A(4) in terms of provision of section\n80AC, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in giving her\nfinding that deduction not claimed in original return u/s\n139(1) cannot be denied if claimed pursuant to notice\nu/s 153A.\nii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

139(1), as a\ncheck has been put in place by virtue of section 10B (5) to\nverify the correctness of claim of deduction at the time of\nfiling the return. If an assessee claims an exemption under\nthe Act by virtue of Section 10B, then the correctness of claim\nhas already been verified under section 10B (5). Therefore

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowance\nof deduction u/s 801A(4) in terms of provision of section\n80AC, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in giving her\nfinding that deduction not claimed in original return u/s\n139(1) cannot be denied if claimed pursuant to notice\nu/s 153A.\nii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

disallowance\nof deduction u/s 801A(4) in terms of provision of section\n80AC, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in giving her\nfinding that deduction not claimed in original return u/s\n139(1) cannot be denied if claimed pursuant to notice\nu/s 153A.\nii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

139(1), as a\ncheck has been put in place by virtue of section 10B (5) to\nverify the correctness of claim of deduction at the time of\nfiling the return. If an assessee claims an exemption under\nthe Act by virtue of Section 10B, then the correctness of claim\nhas already been verified under section 10B (5). Therefore

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

disallowance made on the ground that generation of power does not amount to manufacture or production of goods, in our considered opinion, this issue is no longer res Integra and has been conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP Vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board 2SCR939 wherein it has been held

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

139(1), as a check has been put in place by virtue of section 10B (5) to verify the correctness of claim of deduction at the time of filing the return. If an assessee claims an exemption under the Act by virtue of Section 10B, then the correctness of claim has already been verified under section 10B (5). Therefore