THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

disallowing Rs. 15,75,000/-under section 14A of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in making the addition of an amount being Rs. 18,03,62,857/- under section 56[2

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

disallowed Rs. 6,15,602/- towards certain expenditure due to absence of adequate evidence. In such circumstances, merely because the Ld. AO failed to pass a consequential order pursuant to the Tribunal’s remand, it cannot be held that the accumulation allowed under section 11(2

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs and formulation product. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in M/s. MSN Group of cases on 24.02.2021. The appellant M/s. Maithri

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

Bench: Us:

2) of the Act, which is mandatory for initiating scrutiny proceedings. 4. The LD. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant under section 145 of the Act, and thereafter making separate additions on specific items, which is untenable once the books have been rejected and income

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 135(5) of the Act works out to be Rs. 2 crores. Situation 1 : The company has been spent the required minimum CSR contribution of Rs 2 crores towards construction of roads & schools in the vicinity of the backward area where the factory is located. Tax Treatment: The entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2 crores is to be disallowed

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

Section 135(5) of the Act works out to be Rs. 2 crores. Situation 1 : The company has been spent the required minimum CSR contribution of Rs 2 crores towards construction of roads & schools in the vicinity of the backward area where the factory is located. Tax Treatment: The entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2 crores is to be disallowed

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

section 13(1)(c) r.w.s.13(2)©, 13(2)(h) and 13(2)(g) of the Act. Although, the Assessing Officer has brought-out clear facts in light of relevant evidences and also made disallowance

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Section 143(2), which is contrary to the provisions of law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with rule 8D is bad in law, as the Learned Assessing Officer failed to record his dissatisfaction with regard to the correctness of the appellant's claim, as required under Section 14A(2

UOH STAFF COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the A.O. and claimed that interest earned from fixed deposit with the nationalized banks is also eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act because the interest received is forming part of business of the assessee and therefore the same cannot be disallowed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the

disallowed because the assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction either under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or Section 80P(2

POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Section 135(5) of the Act works out to be Rs. 2 crores. Situation 1 : The company has been spent the required minimum CSR contribution of Rs 2 crores towards construction of roads & schools in the vicinity of the backward area where the factory is located. Tax Treatment: The entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2 crores is to be disallowed

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed the same while computing the business income, but since there is no bar or restriction on deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim such contribution as deduction under section 80G of the Act. Page 2

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed the same while computing the business income, but since there is no bar or restriction on deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim such contribution as deduction under section 80G of the Act. Page 2

MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is\nengaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs and\nformulation product. A search and seizure operation under Section\n132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in M/s. MSN\nGroup of cases on 24.02.2021.\nThe appellant M/s. Maithri

ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. RANGAREDDY DIST JUDL EMPLOYEE MUTUALLY AIDED CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

section 80P(4) of the Act. Thus, the AO held that the\nappellant does not qualify for the deductions u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and disallowed

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 15 availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision and actual written off of debts, further deduction for a write off non-rural bad debts cannot be accepted and thus, disallowed

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

2 AY 2020-21 3 AY 2019-20 4 AY 2018-19 5 AY 2017-18 6 AY 2016-17 7 AY 2015-16 8 AY 2014-15 9 AY 2013-14 10 13. The above-mentioned decisions of Hon'ble High Courts of Madras and Delhi are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The “ten assessment