DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

disallowing Rs.265,71,57, 198/- out of deduction of Rs.847,40,27,692/ claimed by the Appellant under Section 36(1)(viia

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section

GEM MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Gem Motors India (P) Ltd, Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Kondapur, Hyderabad Circle 2(2) Pan:Aaccg7660H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 6 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application & After Hearing The Learned Dr, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

disallowed an amount of Rs.47,82,198/- being belated payment of Employee’s Contribution to PF & ESI by invoking the provisions of section

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

198 ITR 297 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. 7) Whether on the facts and cirCl1mstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

198 ITR 297 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. 7) Whether on the facts and cirCl1mstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

198 ITR 297 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. 7) Whether on the facts and cirCl1mstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

198 ITR 297 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. 7) Whether on the facts and cirCl1mstances of the case

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

198 ITR 297 (SC), and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (supra), rejected the fresh claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, for the reason that the said deduction cannot be claimed during the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, as no such

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 10AA of the Act does not explicitly provide the time line for realization of export proceeds. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that

DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S VARALAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS,, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

198 quashed the said section 153C assessments for want of a valid satisfaction. Meaning thereby that the impugned addition of the above money routed involving M/s. Page 3 of 5 ITA Nos 276 of 2013 CO 37 of 2018 and ITA 2179 of 2018 Varalakshmi Constructions Khammam Madhucon group has been already held to be an invalid addition under

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance of interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act of Rs.64,849/- and the second issue is regarding the validity of issue of notice u/s. 153C of the Act. 6. With regard to first issue, the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs.64,849/- on account of interest paid on late deposit of TDS u/s.201

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance of interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act of Rs.64,849/- and the second issue is regarding the validity of issue of notice u/s. 153C of the Act. 6. With regard to first issue, the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs.64,849/- on account of interest paid on late deposit of TDS u/s.201

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

section 43 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The disallowance of notional interest Rs,27,97,525/-and Rs.9,27,900/-on amounts advanced free of interest is erroneous. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting that the appellant has enough interest free funds and adequate receipts free of interest out of which the interest free advances were given

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

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

section 14A are not applicable. 6.10. Without prejudice to the above, erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.10,68,463/ - instead of restricting the disallowance to the extent of income claimed/ earned as exempt during the year. Additional Grounds of Appeal Without prejudice to the grounds no. 1 to 8 filed on 30.01.2018, herewith we submit: Each of the grounds

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

198 ITR 297 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. Since the proceedings under section 153A of the Act are analogous to proceedings under section

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

198 ITR 297 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. Since the proceedings under section 153A of the Act are analogous to proceedings under section