VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

SKYBRIDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, (TP)-2 HYDERBAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

disallowance, but again, no response was forthcoming. Consequently, the draft assessment order was passed on 22.11.2023 proposing the total income at Rs. 2,98,36,480/-. The assessee was given 30 days to either accept the proposed variation or file objections with the DRP. However, no communication was received from the assessee within the stipulated timeframe. Hence, it was assumed

JASPER AUTO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 0196P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(42C) of the Act. 3 (a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance 0 expenditure to the extent of Rs.12,14,253

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

disallowance towards TDS and VAT payable under section 43B of the Act: Rs. 6,08,694/-; and (v) addition of Rs.3,34,246/- on account of estimated profit on undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246/-, but at the same time declined the assessee’s claim regarding the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO, while initiating proceedings under section

VENKATESH DAGGUBATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section: 37 of 'the Act. The Assessing Officer has been generous enough to allow 50% of the expenditure considering the profession of the appellant .and the appellant has also not denied that the family had accompanied him-for the trip and the; proportionate payment was incurred by the family. In view of the above, the action of the Assessing Officer

LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

253(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) in the Office of the learned Assessing Officer on 20/01/2021 whereas the appeal was to be filed on 10/11/2020 since the order of the Learned CIT(A) was received on 11/09/2020. Apart from this, circumstances under covid pandemic was also taken shelter by the Revenue. There

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

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

253(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) in the Office of the learned Assessing Officer on 20/01/2021 whereas the appeal was to be filed on 10/11/2020 since the order of the Learned CIT(A) was received on 11/09/2020. Apart from this, circumstances under covid pandemic was also taken shelter by the Revenue. There

M/S LANCO HYDRO POWER LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC LE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Lanco Hydro Power Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Hyderabad Tax, Circle – 16(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcv 6385

section 14A clearly stipulates that the expenditure incurred for earning of any income which does not form part of the total income alone can be disallowed. In the case before us, the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs. 2,34,492/- whereas the AO has disallowed Rs. 4,18,67,253

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

section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “3. This Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 1 (SC) has held that power subsidies are of revenue nature and have to be taxed accordingly. We also find that the terms under which the subsidy

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

section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “3. This Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253 1 (SC) has held that power subsidies are of revenue nature and have to be taxed accordingly. We also find that the terms under which the subsidy

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shanta Sriram Constructions Vs The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4180M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Ramarao Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2022

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, ground No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. With respect to Ground No.3, it was the contention of ld.AR that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.65,88,633/-. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer considered this addition at Para No.4 of the assessment order

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable to ‘interest of overdue’. 5. The Learned CIT(A) and the A.O. erred in law in disallowing the expenditure at the rate of 10% on adhoc basis simply by stating that they are supported by self-made vouchers without pointing to any specific deficiency in the books of account. 6. The Learned

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable to ‘interest of overdue’. 5. The Learned CIT(A) and the A.O. erred in law in disallowing the expenditure at the rate of 10% on adhoc basis simply by stating that they are supported by self-made vouchers without pointing to any specific deficiency in the books of account. 6. The Learned

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

253/-, written off under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (ADWDRS) are debts written off, ignored the directions of the ITAT that provisions of section 37(viia) r.w.s 36(2)(v)A are applicable only from 1-4-2007, it is an undisputed fact that no provision for bad debts or provision as per section

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

253/-, written off under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (ADWDRS) are debts written off, ignored the directions of the ITAT that provisions of section 37(viia) r.w.s 36(2)(v)A are applicable only from 1-4-2007, it is an undisputed fact that no provision for bad debts or provision as per section