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)

215/-, paid to subcontractor Shankarapally. It was the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that, the above two amounts represent the outstanding trade payables to the subcontractors towards expenditure incurred in the earlier financial years and therefore, the same cannot be considered for disallowance under Section

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Therefore, we cannot uphold the reasons given by the learned PCIT to set-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years. 11. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for\nboth the

disallowance under section 14A read\nwith Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Therefore, we cannot uphold the\nreasons given by the learned PCIT to set-aside the\nassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for both\nthe assessment years.\n11.\nThe assessee has relied upon the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial\nCompany Limited

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

215 Taxmann 108 (Bom), wherein the amendment to Section 92B of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2002 was considered. Basing on the view taken in a number of decisions of the Tribunal of various Benches, learned TPO held that it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to separately benchmark the arm’s length price

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Nsl Renewable Power Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(1), Pan – Aabcn 6009L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/01/2022

215 Add: Disallowance U/s. 14A Rs. 2,67,05,035 Income from business Assessed Rs. 1,56,96,820 Less: Interest expenditure claimed under the head "income from other sources" Rs. 3,62,71,333 Loss from business Rs. 2 05,74,513 Income under the head-Other sources: Income admitted u/s 56(2)(viia) Rs. 96,21 893 Interest

NATCO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

215 Taxmann 108 (4) Logix Micro Systems Ltd., vs. ACIT ITA.Nos.423 & 524/Bang./2009 dated 07.10.2010 held that SBI short term deposit rates is considered as appropriate CUP to determine ALP of ‘outstanding receivables’. The TPO also issued summons to SBI u/sec.133(6) of the Act to furnish the deposit rates for 15-45 days; 46-90 days

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act has rightly been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the impugned assessment year and he has relied on certain judgments while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act has rightly been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the impugned assessment year and he has relied on certain judgments while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee

RAGHU RAMA RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

section 145(2) of the Act read with ICDS –II notification issued by the CBDT which is effective from A.Y. 2017-18.Accordingly, the said proposed addition of Rs.2,40,16,579/- on account of impairment / loss in the closing stock arising out of its valuation method which is found inconsistent with the prescribed method as Is made final. (Addition of Rs.2

RAGHU RAMA RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 145(2) of the Act read with ICDS –II notification issued by the CBDT which is effective from A.Y. 2017-18.Accordingly, the said proposed addition of Rs.2,40,16,579/- on account of impairment / loss in the closing stock arising out of its valuation method which is found inconsistent with the prescribed method as Is made final. (Addition of Rs.2

KEDARNATH AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent / Ita No. Deputy Smt. Prerana Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 458/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Akhpa2924L] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Seema Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 459/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaypa1542R] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Neha Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 460/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Afhpn9147H] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Kavita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 461/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Adzpa0246N] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Anita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 462/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Central Circle-1(3), Aampa7043D] Hyderabad Deputy Shri Ankit Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 463/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Agjpa1748G] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

215 (Ker), CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, SLP No. 26864/2019, dt. 22/11/2019 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 841/2019, dt. 17/09/2019 (Del), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, dt. 25/07/2019 (ITAT, New Delhi), Krishna Devi vs. ITO, ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dt. 04/01/2022, SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., Civil

SHOBHA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent / Ita No. Deputy Smt. Prerana Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 458/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Akhpa2924L] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Seema Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 459/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaypa1542R] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Neha Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 460/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Afhpn9147H] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Kavita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 461/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Adzpa0246N] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Anita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 462/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Central Circle-1(3), Aampa7043D] Hyderabad Deputy Shri Ankit Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 463/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Agjpa1748G] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

215 (Ker), CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, SLP No. 26864/2019, dt. 22/11/2019 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 841/2019, dt. 17/09/2019 (Del), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, dt. 25/07/2019 (ITAT, New Delhi), Krishna Devi vs. ITO, ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dt. 04/01/2022, SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., Civil

VIMAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent / Ita No. Deputy Smt. Prerana Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 458/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Akhpa2924L] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Seema Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 459/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaypa1542R] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Neha Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 460/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Afhpn9147H] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Kavita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 461/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Adzpa0246N] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Anita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 462/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Central Circle-1(3), Aampa7043D] Hyderabad Deputy Shri Ankit Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 463/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Agjpa1748G] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

215 (Ker), CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, SLP No. 26864/2019, dt. 22/11/2019 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 841/2019, dt. 17/09/2019 (Del), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, dt. 25/07/2019 (ITAT, New Delhi), Krishna Devi vs. ITO, ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dt. 04/01/2022, SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., Civil

PREETI AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent / Ita No. Deputy Smt. Prerana Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 458/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Akhpa2924L] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Seema Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 459/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaypa1542R] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Neha Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 460/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Afhpn9147H] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Kavita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 461/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Adzpa0246N] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Anita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 462/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Central Circle-1(3), Aampa7043D] Hyderabad Deputy Shri Ankit Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 463/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Agjpa1748G] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

215 (Ker), CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, SLP No. 26864/2019, dt. 22/11/2019 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 841/2019, dt. 17/09/2019 (Del), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, dt. 25/07/2019 (ITAT, New Delhi), Krishna Devi vs. ITO, ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dt. 04/01/2022, SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., Civil

ANKIT AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent / Ita No. Deputy Smt. Prerana Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 458/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Akhpa2924L] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Seema Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 459/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaypa1542R] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Neha Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 460/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Afhpn9147H] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Kavita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 461/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Adzpa0246N] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Anita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 462/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Central Circle-1(3), Aampa7043D] Hyderabad Deputy Shri Ankit Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 463/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Agjpa1748G] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

215 (Ker), CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, SLP No. 26864/2019, dt. 22/11/2019 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 841/2019, dt. 17/09/2019 (Del), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, dt. 25/07/2019 (ITAT, New Delhi), Krishna Devi vs. ITO, ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dt. 04/01/2022, SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., Civil

ANITHA AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent / Ita No. Deputy Smt. Prerana Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 458/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Akhpa2924L] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Seema Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 459/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaypa1542R] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Neha Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 460/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Afhpn9147H] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Kavita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 461/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Adzpa0246N] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Anita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 462/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Central Circle-1(3), Aampa7043D] Hyderabad Deputy Shri Ankit Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 463/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Agjpa1748G] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

215 (Ker), CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, SLP No. 26864/2019, dt. 22/11/2019 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 841/2019, dt. 17/09/2019 (Del), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, dt. 25/07/2019 (ITAT, New Delhi), Krishna Devi vs. ITO, ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dt. 04/01/2022, SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., Civil

KAVITHA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent / Ita No. Deputy Smt. Prerana Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 458/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Akhpa2924L] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Seema Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 459/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaypa1542R] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Neha Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 460/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Afhpn9147H] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Kavita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 461/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Adzpa0246N] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Anita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 462/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Central Circle-1(3), Aampa7043D] Hyderabad Deputy Shri Ankit Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 463/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Agjpa1748G] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

215 (Ker), CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, SLP No. 26864/2019, dt. 22/11/2019 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 841/2019, dt. 17/09/2019 (Del), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, dt. 25/07/2019 (ITAT, New Delhi), Krishna Devi vs. ITO, ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dt. 04/01/2022, SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., Civil

NIRMAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyनिर्धारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent / Ita No. Deputy Smt. Prerana Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 458/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Akhpa2924L] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Seema Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 459/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaypa1542R] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Neha Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 460/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Afhpn9147H] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Kavita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 461/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Adzpa0246N] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad Deputy Smt. Anita Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 462/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Central Circle-1(3), Aampa7043D] Hyderabad Deputy Shri Ankit Agarwal, Commissioner Of Hyderabad 463/Hyd/2021 2013-14 Income Tax, [Pan No. Agjpa1748G] Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

215 (Ker), CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, SLP No. 26864/2019, dt. 22/11/2019 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 841/2019, dt. 17/09/2019 (Del), Suman Poddar vs. ITO, ITA No. 1006/Del/2019, dt. 25/07/2019 (ITAT, New Delhi), Krishna Devi vs. ITO, ITA No. 6356/Del/2019, dt. 04/01/2022, SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd., Civil