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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(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 of the Act in 143(1) intimation by observing as under,- “5.1.2 "The third and fourth grounds pertains to the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Income Tax Act when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return

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

Section 37(1) of the Act.\nThe A.O. disallowed the interest paid on TDS by following the\ndecision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nChennai Properties and Investments Ltd., 239

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3) Grounds 8 and 9: Payments made to parties amounting to Rs.4.8 crores without TDS deduction. 4) Ground 10: Disallowance of Rs.2,77,09,907 made for purportedly bogus development expenditure. 5) Ground 11: Disallowance of Rs.8,41,87,239

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

239 ITR 435 (Madras). Accordingly, we uphold the aforesaid disallowance. 13. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 32,89,736/- under Section

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

section 14A r.w.r 8D is not applicable when shares are held as stock-in-trade by a Bank. Although we are unable to agree with the said argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee, but to give another opportunity to the assessee to explain its case before the Assessing Officer in light of the decision

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and\nthe revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of\nour observations recorded hereinabove

239 ITR 435 (Madras). Accordingly, we uphold the\naforesaid disallowance.\n13. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 32,89,736/- under\nSection 40(a)(ia), we note that although the assessee firm did not\nsubstantiate its claim either before the AO or before the CIT(A), it\nhas contended before us that tax was duly deducted and\ndeposited within

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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every 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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every 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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every 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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every 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

section 37 of the Act. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that any further discrepancies in income/expenses were also considered and offered an amount of Rs. 25,97,54,397/-by the company and the same is qualified for deduction u/s 80- IA. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that every assessee