MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowing income-tax deduction for any kind of fine is not proper. g. Another noteworthy point is that the Explanation to section 37(1) is a deeming provision. It only creates a legal fiction. Next, the Explanation comes into play when expenditure, though incurred for business purpose, is coupled with purpose which is offence or prohibited by law. Here

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

disallowance, which was allowed by the CIT(A) in favor of the Appellant. 4.1.6. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal stating that the learned CIT(A) did not verify the reasonable certainty of the site restoration costs and not referring the matter for remand proceedings for verification

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

disallowance, which was allowed by the CIT(A) in favor of the Appellant. 4.1.6. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal stating that the learned CIT(A) did not verify the reasonable certainty of the site restoration costs and not referring the matter for remand proceedings for verification

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

disallowance, which was allowed by the CIT(A) in favor of the Appellant. 4.1.6. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal stating that the learned CIT(A) did not verify the reasonable certainty of the site restoration costs and not referring the matter for remand proceedings for verification

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

disallowance, which was allowed by the CIT(A) in favor of the Appellant. 4.1.6. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal stating that the learned CIT(A) did not verify the reasonable certainty of the site restoration costs and not referring the matter for remand proceedings for verification

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

disallowance, which was allowed by the CIT(A) in favor of the Appellant. 4.1.6. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal stating that the learned CIT(A) did not verify the reasonable certainty of the site restoration costs and not referring the matter for remand proceedings for verification

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

disallowance, which was allowed by the CIT(A) in favor of the Appellant. 4.1.6. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal stating that the learned CIT(A) did not verify the reasonable certainty of the site restoration costs and not referring the matter for remand proceedings for verification

VASANTHA TRADERS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Vasantha Traders, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan- Aahfv8178M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik Date Of Hearing : 22-01-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2018 Order Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: This Is Assessee Appeal For The A.Y 2012-13, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-5, Hyderabad Dated 07-12-2016 In This Assessment Year The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made U/S 14A(2) Of The It Act R.W.R 8D Of The It Rules.

disallowance. On appeal to the High Court: 5 M/s Vasantha Traders, Hyderabad. Section 14A was inserted providing that no deduction shall be allowable in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of income exempt from taxation. The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 1/192

JAYA HOSPITALS,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowed an amount of Rs. 41, 34,493/- invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act. First of all, we are unable to understand how provisions of section 37 will apply, when interest on borrowed funds are to be considered u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Be that as it may, the claim of Interest was only

JAYA HOSPITALS,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowed an amount of Rs. 41, 34,493/- invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act. First of all, we are unable to understand how provisions of section 37 will apply, when interest on borrowed funds are to be considered u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Be that as it may, the claim of Interest was only

NARENDRA BALUSU, HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.594/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Narendra Balusu, Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14(1) Pan:Acxpb4000E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Narendra Balusu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 31/10/2023 For The Ay 2021- 22. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

section 54(2) of the Act and against the said deposit of Rs.3,88,83,000/-, claimed deduction of Rs.2,04,81,789/- u/s 54F from the LTCG on the sale of flats and Rs.1,84,01,211/- u/s 54F from the LTCG on the sale of plots. The ld.AO disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance of Rs. 2,67,641/- by the AO on account of belated payment of PF and ESI is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition if the amounts are paid before the due date filing of return of income. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance of Rs. 2,67,641/- by the AO on account of belated payment of PF and ESI is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition if the amounts are paid before the due date filing of return of income. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before

SDE ENGINEERS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act at Rs.99,85,307/- by recording the following reasons: “i. The claim of assessee that the Industrial Park was made operational on 15.10.2004 by a lease agreement dated 21-9-2004 with M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SSCL] is not based on facts. ii. Assessee has not kept

SDE ENGINEERS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act at Rs.99,85,307/- by recording the following reasons: “i. The claim of assessee that the Industrial Park was made operational on 15.10.2004 by a lease agreement dated 21-9-2004 with M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SSCL] is not based on facts. ii. Assessee has not kept

SDE ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act at Rs.99,85,307/- by recording the following reasons: “i. The claim of assessee that the Industrial Park was made operational on 15.10.2004 by a lease agreement dated 21-9-2004 with M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SSCL] is not based on facts. ii. Assessee has not kept

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), wherein it has been laid down that the AO cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed

JAYA HOSPITALAS, WARANGAL,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, WARANGAL RANGE, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowed an amount of Rs. 41, 34,493/- invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act. First of all, we are unable to understand how provisions of section 37 will apply, when interest on borrowed funds are to be considered u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Be that as it may, the claim of Interest was only

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules and disallowed interest expenditure amounting to INR 2,915,240. Our Submission During the captioned FY 2013-14, the Company has debited the following interest costs to the profit and loss account: S.No. Nature of interest Amount (in INR) Sl. Nature of interest Amount No. (Rs.) 1. Interest