ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAURUS LABS LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of claim under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of clinical trials. This issue also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare (supra). While respectfully following the said decision, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal held in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Limited in ITA No. 352/Hyd/2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAURUS LABS LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of claim under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of clinical trials. This issue also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare (supra). While respectfully following the said decision, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal held in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Limited in ITA No. 352/Hyd/2023

LAURUS LABS LIMITED,VISHAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of claim under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of clinical trials. This issue also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare (supra). While respectfully following the said decision, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal held in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Limited in ITA No. 352/Hyd/2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAURUS LABS LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of claim under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of clinical trials. This issue also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare (supra). While respectfully following the said decision, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal held in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Limited in ITA No. 352/Hyd/2023

SOLEX COMMERCIAL & CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 14A r.w.Rule8D made disallowances of Rs.11,29,192/- 6. Before the ld.CIT(A), it was argued that application of provision

SOLEX COMMERCIAL & CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 14A r.w.Rule8D made disallowances of Rs.11,29,192/- 6. Before the ld.CIT(A), it was argued that application of provision

SOLEX COMMERCIAL & CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 14A r.w.Rule8D made disallowances of Rs.11,29,192/- 6. Before the ld.CIT(A), it was argued that application of provision

SOLEX COMMERCIAL & CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 14A r.w.Rule8D made disallowances of Rs.11,29,192/- 6. Before the ld.CIT(A), it was argued that application of provision

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

disallowance, and also in a case where NO response is received, then within thirty days of the issue of such intimation, department is free to make such adjustment. 8. On going through the above intimation made under section 143(1), CPC has not followed the above provisos by giving proper opportunity to the assessee to defend its case

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 :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

CYIENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2021-22 Cyient Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Apn : Aaac14887J

Section 192 only, in case payment comes under taxable net, then TDS needs to be deducted. Since the assessee claims that in many of the employees’ cases, the income does not exceed the taxable net, the assessee has not deducted TDS. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer and the DRP completely erred in disallowance

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 18.03.2014 on the ground that, the assessee has not challenged the additions made by the A.O. and accepted the disallowances. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the addition made towards disallowance of foreign

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 40(a) (i) of the Act against the reimbursements made to its AEs, disregarding the well settled ratio in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd [2010] 194 Taxman 192

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE PRASAD JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

disallowance of 30% was unwarranted. 10. Section 40 provides as follows Amounts not deductible. 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 41[38], the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— 42[(i)43 44any interest

BALA REDDY GOPU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 17(1)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee and whole commission income brought to tax. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee contested that AO had incorrectly treated the commission income as salary as the assessee had followed

MANNE HAREESH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Manne Hareesh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Sita Mansion, 1-10- Ward-6(2), 104/14, Mayur Marg, Hyderabad. Begumpet, Hyderabad. Pan: Admpm 6479 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri T. Ramamurthy, Ca Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2019 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

section 194H and 40(a)(ia) of the Act and thereby disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 47,50,000. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order Ld. AO by agreeing with his view. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs. 47,50,000 was paid to employees who were selling the products marketed

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

disallowing the 100% of deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Act for want to ratification letter, the DRP, upon filing of ratification letter, has directed the AO to allow the deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Act in respect of Paidi Bhimavaram unit. However, based on the request/enhancement letter filed by the AO, the ORP has allowed the claim

ITO, WARD-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. R.K. INFRA & ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowance. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the department is in further appeal in the case of Merylin Shipping and Transport, Visakhapatnam(2012) 136 lTD 002 on which the CIT(A) relied while giving relief to the assessee. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the matter has not yet reached finality

BIOLOGICAL E LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of weighted deduction in respect of such expenditure which is not certified by DSIR. Only argument of the Ld. AR is that under section 35 (1) (2AB) of the Act in respect of the company engaged in the business of biotechnology the in- house R&D facility has to be approved by the prescribed authority but not the expenditure