ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to\nsection 37(1) of the Act.\nThe company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the\ndonation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief\nFund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with section 80G(1)(i) of the Act.\nThe company claim deduction to the extent

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

disallowance under Section 14A: Rs.15,75,000/-; and (ii). addition u/s 56(2)(viia) : Rs.18,03,62,857/-. In compliance, the A.O. filed his “remand report” on 10.01.2020. Thereafter, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the addition/disallowance made by the A.O. upheld the same. 8. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) has carried

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

23 of 31 ITA No.709/Hyd/2012 & CO No.138/Hyd/2012 Action For Welfare And Awakening In Rural Environment (AWARE) the Tribunal’s remand was not passed by the Ld. AO within limitation. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR no amount could be treated as accumulated under section 11(2) of the Act for the A.Y. 1994-95. Further

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowance of Rs. 94,55,889/- are upheld and sustained. Accordingly. relevant grounds of appeal are dismissed and not allowed. 6. In result, the present appeal of the appellant is dismissed and not allowed.” 12. The assessee company, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 13(1)(c) r.w.s.13(2)(c) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer after considering relevant provisions of the Act and also applying provisions of sec.40A(2)(a) observed that, appellant society has made excessive and unreasonable payment to the above two companies for rendering services which cannot be allowed as deduction. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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/- u/s.14A of the Act representing 2% of the exempted income earned during the year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO found that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs.315,77,04,000/- in shares and other instruments. Therefore, the Ld. AO calculated the amount of disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D at Rs.8

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of his claim for deduction of expenditure of Rs.16,33,050/-. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 5 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

23-12-2024 is erroneous, contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. i) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 10,67,172/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). ii) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that Appellant did not incur

POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

23 February, 2018 does not deal with\nthe primary grievance of the petitioner. This, even after he\nconcedes with the method of valuation namely, NAV Method\nor the DCF Method to determine the fair market value of\nshares has to be done adopted at the Assessee's option.\nNevertheless, he does not deal with the change in the\nmethod

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)

2,23,33,770/- @ 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)

2,23,33,770/- @ 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