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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and the Revenue\nare partly allowed

2(22)(e) of the\nAct.\n\n3. The 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. The appellant

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MSN LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n\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 (“the Act”) was carried out in M/s.\nMSN Group of cases on 24.02.2021. The appellant

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. MSN PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3. The 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 (“the Act”) was carried out in M/s.\nMSN Group of cases on 24.02.2021. The appellant

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3. The 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 (“the Act”) was carried out in M/s.\nMSN Group of cases on 24.02.2021. The appellant

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

22)(e) of the\nAct.\"\n3. The 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 (“the Act”) was carried out in M/s.\nMSN Group of cases on 24.02.2021. The appellant

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

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

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

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 drugs and pharmaceuticals. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in M/s. MSN Group of cases on 24.02.2021. The appellant M/s. MSN Pharmachem Private Limited (hereinafter

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

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 drugs and pharmaceuticals. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in M/s. MSN Group of cases on 24.02.2021. The appellant M/s. MSN Pharmachem Private Limited (hereinafter

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

22. From a bare reading of the section 80G of the Act we note that deduction under this section has to be made in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section i.e. section 80G of the Act. As per this section i.e. section 80G of the Act, an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

22. From a bare reading of the section 80G of the Act we note\nthat deduction under this section has to be made in accordance\nwith and subject to the provisions of this section i.e. section 80G\nof the Act. As per this section i.e. section 80G of the Act, an\namount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate

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

Bench: Us :

disallowance u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act was called for in the case of the assessee company. 21. Apropos the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee company had entered into an “agreement”, dated 18.02.2010 for subscription of shares of the aforementioned company, viz. M/s. Kineta Metals and Minerals Limited (supra) which was before the insertion

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) of the Act in the original assessment ceased to exist. Therefore

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

Bench: Us:

disallowance of Rs. 94,55,889/- are upheld and sustained. Accordingly. relevant grounds of appeal are dismissed and not allowed. 6. In result, the present appeal of the appellant is dismissed and not allowed.” 12. The assessee company, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard

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

22. From a bare reading of the section 80G of the Act we note that deduction under this section has to be made in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section i.e. section 80G of the Act. As per this section i.e. section 80G of the Act, an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate

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

22. From a bare reading of the section 80G of the Act we note that deduction under this section has to be made in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section i.e. section 80G of the Act. As per this section i.e. section 80G of the Act, an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate

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)(c) and 13(2)(g) of the 1.T. Act. The AO has noted that he is not convinced with the reasons for handing over coaching centers to JV and VEMPL. The AO further noted that the appellant has incurred a loss during the immediately preceding year and also during the present year

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