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

31,26,864/- after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance under section 14A r.w Rule 8D, after taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee company had earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 13.20 crore during the year from its investments, and rejecting its claim of not having incurred any expenditure and computing the disallowance at 1% of the annual

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

31,26,864/-\nafter making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance\nunder section 14A r.w Rule 8D, after taking cognizance of the fact that\nthe assessee company had earned exempt dividend income of Rs.\n13.20 crore during the year from its investments, and rejecting its claim\nof not having incurred any expenditure and computing the disallowance\nat 1% of the annual

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

Bench: Us :

31,50,00,000/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in 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

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

section 11(2) are not applicable in respect of the income accumulated in these years is erroneous on the facts of the case. Page 3 of 31 ITA No.709/Hyd/2012 & CO No.138/Hyd/2012 Action For Welfare And Awakening In Rural Environment (AWARE) 4. The CIT(A) failed to see that for the A.Y.1991-92, the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) accepting the income

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) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer after considering relevant provisions of the Act and also applying provisions of sec.40A(2)(a) observed that, appellant society has made excessive and unreasonable payment to the above two companies for rendering services which cannot be allowed as deduction. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of Rs. 2

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of Rs. 2

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of Rs. 2

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

31,06,945/- which includes administrative/establishment expenses etc. In our considered view, the said findings of the Assessing Officer constitutes satisfaction as required to be recorded u/sec.14A(2) of the Act and thus, the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that, the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction as required under section 14A(2) before proceeding to compute

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

section 234B/234C, which was disallowed in the earlier years.\n2. An amount of Rs.2,09,08,248/- was credited to Profit and Loss Account in F.Y. 2017-18 towards the reversal of excess interest debited in earlier years, computed as under:\nSr\nInterest\nrelating\nto A.Y.\n(1)\nInterest\nDetermined\non\n(2)\nInterest\ndebited\nto P&L\nA/c

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 exempt income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 was based on the facts that all the investments of the assessee were stock in trade. However, in fact, the entire investment made by the assessee are not in the nature of stock in trade

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

31 March 2023 with the said date indubitably constituting the end of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. Viewed in light of the above, the block period of 10 AYs' would be as follows:- Computation of the ten-year block No. of years period as provided under section 153C

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

31 March 2023 with the said date indubitably constituting the end of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. Viewed in light of the above, the block period of 10 AYs' would be as follows:- Computation of the ten-year block No. of years period as provided under section 153C

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

Section 234B/234C, which\nwas disallowed in the earlier years.\n2. An amount of Rs.2,09,08,248/- was credited to Profit and Loss Account in F.Y. 2017-18\ntowards the reversal of excess interest debited in earlier years, computed as under:\nSr\nInterest\nrelating\nto A.Y.\n(1)\n(2)\nInterest\nDetermined\non\n(3)\nInterest\ndebited

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

disallowance is covered under para no. 5 to 10 of his order, which is reproduced as under : 5. In response to this, the assessee has submitted his reply and stated the facts of the case. The assessee has stated that assessee’s society is not doing any banking business except accepting deposits from its own members and advancing loans

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

31-\n3-2016, the assessing Officer on presumptions and suspicion cannot disallow the\nsame.\n8. Your Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) without proper\napplication of mind and appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held\nelectricity is an article or thing, the production of the same is equal to manufacturing