S K G REFRACTORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07 Skg Refractories Limited, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500063. Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Pan : Aadcs4040G. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Samuel Nagadesi. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M.

disallowance of the interest expenditure of Rs.54,40,440 for the previous year 2004-05. The Department computed the tax payable based on the return. of income filed by the appellant-assessee on 27-10-2005, and issued a demand notice indicating Rs.93,016 as shortfall tax to be paid. 3. Subsequently, an application under section 154(1

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure against the unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs. In the process, the assessee purchased various solvents and used them for manufacturing bulk drugs. The used solvents

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure against the unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs. In the process, the assessee purchased various solvents and used them for manufacturing bulk drugs. The used solvents

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

section nor the circular stipulates that the deduction of 15% shall be allowed only for the period after the notification of backward area. 13) Coming to the case of the assessee, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company set up two solar power plants one at Peerampalli village and the other at Kothagudi :- 57 -: M/s Maheswari

NICHINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY NICHINO CHEMICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NOW MERGED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.366/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nichino India Private Dcit / Acit Limited (Formerly Nichino Vs. Circle-5(1) Chemical India Private Hyderabad Limited, Now Merged) Hyderabad [Pan : Aaecn5394B] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ms.Suvibha Nolkha, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri D.Praveen, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/09/2024

154 of the Act and due to the fact that the assessment proceedings were faceless, the assessee had no opportunity to put forth their case against disallowance in the intimation under section 143(1

DURGAMATHA HOUSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 80P(2) was made in the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act and not under section 154

SRI LAKSHMI ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act”. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of transportation. It filed its return of income for AY 2018–19 on 02.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.96,50,344/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

A.P. GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK,WARANGAL vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1,22,51,93,517/-. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 04/03/2013 assessing the total income at Rs. 142,04,20,490/- thereby making various additions totalling to Rs. 19,52,26,969/-. Subsequently, learned Assessing Officer rectified the assessment order under section 154

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act to that

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A(1) that the impugned disallowance provision is applicable in absence of exempt income as well but with prospective effect only from 01.04.2022 onwards. We reiterate that we are in A.Ys. 2014-14 to 2017- 18 only. We thus find no merit in Revenue’s stand and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. 14. The assessee

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A(1) that the impugned disallowance provision is applicable in absence of exempt income as well but with prospective effect only from 01.04.2022 onwards. We reiterate that we are in A.Ys. 2014-14 to 2017- 18 only. We thus find no merit in Revenue’s stand and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. 14. The assessee

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A(1) that the impugned disallowance provision is applicable in absence of exempt income as well but with prospective effect only from 01.04.2022 onwards. We reiterate that we are in A.Ys. 2014-14 to 2017- 18 only. We thus find no merit in Revenue’s stand and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. 14. The assessee

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A(1) that the impugned disallowance provision is applicable in absence of exempt income as well but with prospective effect only from 01.04.2022 onwards. We reiterate that we are in A.Ys. 2014-14 to 2017- 18 only. We thus find no merit in Revenue’s stand and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. 14. The assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance and gave a demand notice of almost double the liability. The AO made an addition that the appellant has violated provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and applied provisions of section 164(2) and made the same addition u/s 40(a)(2b) and calculated the demand for both the additions and made the appellant liable for both the demands

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

disallowance, unless there is a positive finding recorded that a part of the amount borrowed was not used for the purposes of the business. As was observed in Mahadev Prasad's case (1979) l18 ITR 200 (SC), the expression for the purpose of business appearing in S. 36(1) (iti) and S. 37(1) is wider in scope than

DURGAMATHA HOUSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 Durgamatha House Building Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Construction Co-Operative Hyderabad. Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. Pan : Aacad6852C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024

1) of the Act and the rectification application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act was rejected. Appeal filed against the order under section 154 of the Act was also rejected on the ground that the disallowance

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

1. The learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the submission of assessee that allocation of corporate overhead to tax holiday units is a debatable issue and the same cannot be covered with in the scope of section 154. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in travelling beyond the scope of 154 and confirming the order of A.O issued under