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

disallowance of the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of the Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

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

disallowance of\nthe claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of\nthe Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect\nof alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs.\n1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his\norder passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

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

disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.11. 7. The decision the CIT(A) is erroneous both in facts and in law that the A.O. denied exemption against the income earned for the A.Ys. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-95 and accordingly, the same can not be considered as accumulation u/s.11(2) of the 1.T.Act. The Id.CIT(A) failed

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

Bench: Us:

iv) ad-hoc disallowance of business expenses due to non-verification. The appellant has raised several grounds disputing the validity of reopening of the case, rejection of books, and merits of each addition. The appellant has raised 30 grounds of appeal. For the sake of brevity, the grounds of appeal are grouped issue wise for discussion and decision. Upon careful

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

IV is chargeable at normal rates.” 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant society preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the appellant society has reiterated it’s submissions made before the Assessing Officer and argued that, the assessing officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c)/40A(2

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

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

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)

disallowance of his claim for deduction of expenditure of Rs.16,33,050/-. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 5 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Ble

iv) of the Act i.e., the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession and therefore, in our considered view, there is no error in the findings recorded by the LD.CIT(A) to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards benefit derived by the assessee

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

iv) of the Act amounting\nto Rs.1,20,81,643/- by observing that the interest income is earned from investments\nmade with scheduled banks and co-operative banks and not eligible for deduction u/s\n80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO held that the Regional Rural Banks are not co-operative\nsocieties as per the circular 6/2010 dated

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

24,12,048/-.\n4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 14A of the Act.\n5. Against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

iv) any other condition as may be prescribed37a; or]\n48\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025\n(B) operating as a venture capital scheme made by the Unit\nTrust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act,\n1963† (52 of 1963);\n(c) "venture capital undertaking" means-\n(i) a venture capital undertaking as defined in clause

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

iv) any other condition as may be prescribed37a; or]\n48\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025\n(B) operating as a venture capital scheme made by the Unit\nTrust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act,\n1963† (52 of 1963);\n(c) "venture capital undertaking" means-\n(i)\na venture capital undertaking as defined in clause

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

iv) any other condition as may be prescribed37a; or]\n47\nITA.Nos.2147, 2148 and 2149/Hyd./2025\n(B) operating as a venture capital scheme made by the Unit\nTrust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act,\n1963† (52 of 1963);\n(c) "venture capital undertaking" means-\n(i)\na venture capital undertaking as defined in clause

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

2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

24,12,048/-.\n4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and\ndeleted the disallowance made by the Ld. AO under Section 14A of the Act.\n5. Against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue

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

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

iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained — and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, Section 43B 29 Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or outgoings forming part of the assessee’s liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties

SREE KANYAKA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT CREDIT AND MARKETG. SOCIETY LIMITED,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HINDUPUR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

iv) of the Act. Such interest income cannot be said also to be attributable to the activity of the society, namely, carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members. When the assessee – society provides credit facilities to its members, it earns interest income which only is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2