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)

23,33,770/- @ 30% of subcontract works of Rs. 7,44,45,893/- and added the same under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 51. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted relevant details and argued that the A.O. had disallowed

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)

23,33,770/- @ 30% of subcontract works of Rs. 7,44,45,893/- and added the same under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 51. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted relevant details and argued that the A.O. had disallowed

JASPER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

23,000/- on investment in equity instruments. The A.O. further noted that the assessee had made current investments of Rs. 5,302.61 lakhs as on 01.04.2014 and Rs. 5,479.11 lakhs as on 31.03.2015 in equity instruments. 4. The A.O. called upon the assessee to explain as to why disallowance should not be made under Section

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 10 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income earned during the year under consideration. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 23

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 10 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income earned during the year under consideration. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 23

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 10 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income earned during the year under consideration. These grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 23

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of finance charges to an extent of Rs.54,95,788/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 23

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of finance charges to an extent of Rs.54,95,788/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 23

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of finance charges to an extent of Rs.54,95,788/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 23

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of finance charges to an extent of Rs.54,95,788/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 23

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of finance charges to an extent of Rs.54,95,788/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 23

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. BHAGYANAGAR INDIA LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1200/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Income Tax Officer, M/S. Bhagyanagar India Ward-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan:Aaacb8963C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 16.05.2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 14A of the Act. These disallowances led to an addition of Rs.81,96,987/- to the gross total income of Rs.41,59,816/-, thereby computing the gross total income at Rs.1,23

ANDHRA PRADESH BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

23,75,131 Disallowance of Payment towards Leave encashment 8,42,385 Disallowance of Payments towards PF/SF GF and other fund 15,36,759 Total 726,10,39,064 The above additions/disallowance made are erroneous and the CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions/ disallowance without appreciating the submissions put forth by the appellant. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred

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

23,01,307/- towards disallowance of claim of depreciation on investments and Rs.10 lakhs towards penalty. Accordingly, the Ld. AO assessed the total income at Rs.3764,77,47,070/-. 03. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 04. Aggrieved with

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowing interest expenditure of Rs. 11,08,678/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that, the assessee had advanced interest-free loans and advances to related parties. It was submitted that, the advances were given in the ordinary course of business for purchase of seeds and in furtherance of business operations

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has disallowed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has disallowed