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

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Your Appellant submits that provision of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) operate independently subject to the condition that any debts written off in books will be first setoff against any provision under section 36(1)(viia) made and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment years

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Your Appellant submits that provision of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) operate independently subject to the condition that any debts written off in books will be first setoff against any provision under section 36(1)(viia) made and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment years

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Your Appellant submits that provision of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) operate independently subject to the condition that any debts written off in books will be first setoff against any provision under section 36(1)(viia) made and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment years

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Your Appellant submits that provision of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) operate independently subject to the condition that any debts written off in books will be first setoff against any provision under section 36(1)(viia) made and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment years

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Your Appellant submits that provision of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) operate independently subject to the condition that any debts written off in books will be first setoff against any provision under section 36(1)(viia) made and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment years

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Your Appellant submits that provision of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) operate independently subject to the condition that any debts written off in books will be first setoff against any provision under section 36(1)(viia) made and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment years

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Your Appellant submits that provision of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) operate independently subject to the condition that any debts written off in books will be first setoff against any provision under section 36(1)(viia) made and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the earlier assessment years

VENKAT RAJASEKHAR KONERU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

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

disallowance of improvement expenses, thereby assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.44,51,425/- and passed assessment order on 18.02.2022 u/s 153C of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT

PRAMOD REDDY TEKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

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

disallowance of improvement expenses, thereby assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.44,51,425/- and passed assessment order on 18.02.2022 u/s 153C of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT

BANDI SUDHEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

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

disallowance of improvement expenses, thereby assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.44,51,425/- and passed assessment order on 18.02.2022 u/s 153C of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT

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 Rs.329,62,82,921/- towards deduction claimed in respect

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

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

47,070/-.\n03. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the\nLd. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\n04. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as the\nrevenue are in appeal before us.\nITA No.193/Hyd/2019 ( Assessee's appeal)\n05. The assessee

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)

v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction

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)

v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction

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)

v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already 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 Rs.329,62,82,921/- towards deduction claimed in respect of bad debts written

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already 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 Rs.329,62,82,921/- towards deduction claimed in respect of bad debts written

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already 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 Rs.329,62,82,921/- towards deduction claimed in respect of bad debts written