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)

disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16,88,379/-, the assessee claims that, it has deducted TDS of Rs. 1,28,206

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)

disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16,88,379/-, the assessee claims that, it has deducted TDS of Rs. 1,28,206

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)

disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16,88,379/-, the assessee claims that, it has deducted TDS of Rs. 1,28,206

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 37 of the Act towards CSR expenditure, Rs.2,07,247/- on account of disallowance towards prior period expenses and Rs.38 lakhs on account of non-reconciliation of income as per profit and ITA No.1747/Hyd/2019 14 loss account and form no.26AS. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,74,79,993/-. 6. Aggrieved with

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 192/Hyd/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyam Venture Assistant Commissioner Engineering Services Vs. Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(2), Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs3287D] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowing payments made to three foreign entities. 5. At the outset, learned AR submitted that for the assessment year 2009-10, an issue similar to the adjustment in respect of ITeS services had arisen in assessee’s own case before the Tribunal in ITA No.1464/Hyd/2014 and by order dated 29/12/2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal directed the learned

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

section 80IB (Yanam) and 80IC (Baddi) units respectively. Yanam 80 IB Unit Baddi 80 IC Unit TTO of the Company (DRL) Sales/income 78,66,36,730 206,31,19,015 3828,03,81,450 % on TTo of the 2.05% 5.38% company (DRL) Corporate overhead 2,59,74,074 6,81.66,106 expenditure allocated on the basis of % Hence, these corporate

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance as part of the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 16. The Revenue in ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 for the A.Y 2014-15 has raised the following grounds: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance of the liquidated damages of Rs. 6.19 crores paid to Fresenius. 5. Coming first to Ground Nos. 1 to 3, the Ld. AR made detail submission with regards to their objection towards the invocation of section 263 by the Ld. PCIT. The relevant portion of submission made by Ld. AR dated 29/09/2023 in this regards is reproduced as under

VALUELABS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the order passed by the CIT(A) and\ndismiss the assessee's appeal

206 (Madras); (ii) ACIT vs. M/s. Indsil Hydro Power &\nManganese Ltd, ITA No.3491/Chny/2018, dated 09/08/2021; and (iii)\nSatia Industries Ltd vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New\nDelhi (2023) 151 taxmann.com 358 (Amritsar-Trib), therefore, we shall\ndeal with the same, as under:\n(A). CIT vs. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd.(supra)\nIn the said case, the Hon'ble High Court