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

disallowed the claim of deduction, inter-alia, on the ground that a claim not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) and sought to be made for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A of the Act would not be maintainable. Further, the assessee was also found to be ineligible

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

disallowed the claim on the short ground that the benefit is not available to the appellant as the notification specifying Ranga Reddy District as backward area was published on 20.07.2016 and therefore the Appellant Company is not eligible to the deduction as the addition and installation of the machinery were made prior to the said date. Aggrieved with the action

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,77,839; 3. erred in upholding the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 10,00,000 as determined by the Ld. AO on ad-hoc basis; Additional Ground 3.1. erred in disallowing the expenses pertaining to AY 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 11,51,001 without appreciating the facts of the Appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CRICLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

1) of the Act,\nreopened its case u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act\ndated 31.03.2019 was duly served upon the assessee company.\nHowever, the assessee company failed to file its return of income\nin compliance to the aforesaid notice. As the assessee company\nhad neither filed its return of income nor complied with the notices

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs” 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs” 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs” 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs” 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs” 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs” 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above as well

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

disallowed on the ground that the\nbooks which are sponsored by the assessee are devotional or\nspiritual in nature not connected with the business activity\nof the assessee. Hence, we decide this issue in favour of the\nassessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim\nof the assessee.\n9.\nThe assessee has also raised additional grounds of\nappeal

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

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

1 (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 549 "10. A settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement......". 12. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Jharkhand High

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

1 (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 549 "10. A settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement......". 12. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Jharkhand High