RAMAKRISHNA INDUSTRIES ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of TDS. 4. Insofar as the interest on FDR is concerned, learned AR submitted that the only business of the assessee is generation and sale of power. And during the financial year relevant for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee placed certain surplus amounts in FDRs which yielded interest

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAMSI MOHAN VALLABHANENI, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Vamsi Mohan Vallabhaneni, Tax, R/O.Vijayawada. Central Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Adrpv4231C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmadha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

172. settlement sale of land at 4.7 Though, when specifically asked, Bri. V Vamshi Mohan has denied having received the said amount, but from the evidences found and in light of the sequence of events as narrated above it is quite probable that Sri V Vamshi Mohan, was paid the said amount as mentioned at page 101 of A/MBS/04

PURPLETALK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

disallowing ESI\ncontribution of Rs.13,172/ and treating the same\nas income under section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of\nthe

ANRAK ALUMINIUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms

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

Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules in arriving proportionate interest expenditure disallowance of Rs.3,37,63,307/-. Case records and more particularly para 3.4 of the assessment order suggests that the assessee was found to have made investments of Rs.17,41,46,612/- relating to its exempt income from dividends to the tune

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARCHEESH HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, K V RANGA REDDY

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

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

Section 35D of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, there is no error in the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of expenses/business loss of Rs. 1,74,17,172