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

disallowance of\nthe claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of\nthe Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect\nof alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs.\n1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his\norder passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act pertains to computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act and cannot be read into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act pertaining to levy of minimum alternate tax and there is no express provision in clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act to that

TMI E2E ACADEMY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), 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 Tmi E2E Academy Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadct 7103 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. Maruthi Raghuram Revenue By: Smt. N. Swapna Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) – 2, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 28/06/2018 For Ay 2014-15 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”, As Stated In Grounds Of Appeal.

disallowance of any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits and gains. The professional tax levied by local authorities cannot normally be considered to fall within section 40(0)( ii). In order

SHRI RAMPRIYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

section 256.” In Bengal Enamel. Works Ltd. v. CIT/1970) 77 ITR 119, the .Supreme ,Court considered remuneration paid by the assessee to a technical adviser and taking into consideration that the taxing authorities had uniformly found that the remuneration agreed to be paid was influenced by “extra commercial considerations”, it being much in excess of what was normally payable, rejected

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 6th February, 2026

disallowance of\nexpenditure resulted in enhancement of income and therefore, the\nLd. AO was justified in initiating and levying penalty under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n7.\nWe have carefully considered the rival submissions\nand perused the material available on record. We have also gone\nthrough page no. 8 of the reassessment order dated 05.12.2019\npassed

SHARE MICROFIN LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that as per the One Time Settlement (OTS) claim dated 25.11.2015, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.4.20 crores to Blue Orchid Finance (BOF) out of the total amount of Rs.24.23 crores which consisted of principal outstanding of Rs.19.09 crores and interest of 5.14 crores. He submitted that the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

disallowed. In support of our above decision, we rely on the judgements of ITAT, Delhi Special Bench – Third Member case in the case of National Thermal Power Vs. IAC, [1988] 24 ITD 1 (Delhi) (SB). The Special Bench in the said case has held as under: ORDER “Per Shri P.K. Mehta, Accountant Member - The assessee M/s National Thermal Power Corporation

IMAGE BROADCASTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1), HYDERABAD

256 ITR 701\nand held that the appellant had not discharged the onus to prove\nthe genuineness of the expenses claimed that the said expenses\nwere incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of\nbusiness of the appellant. Accordingly, 10% of such expenses\nclaimed were disallowed. During the appellate proceedings, no\nfurther details were furnished in support of the claim

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

BHARGAVI MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

256 ITR 1(Del)(FB) approved by the supreme court in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) which has been held to be against the provisions of law by various appellate authorities and hence the order of the ld CIT(A) required to be quashed.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, a firm e-filed its return

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance of Rs.4,09,53,977/- was on account of contract being allotted in names Joint Ventures and the same was executed by the appellant being a constituent of the JVs. It is seen from the facts and issues, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam relied upon by the appellant in the case of M/s Transtroy India

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance of Rs.4,09,53,977/- was on account of contract being allotted in names Joint Ventures and the same was executed by the appellant being a constituent of the JVs. It is seen from the facts and issues, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam relied upon by the appellant in the case of M/s Transtroy India

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolution Panel

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolution Panel

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolution Panel

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolution Panel

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

256, has inter alia ruled that the assessee can file revised computation in the course of ongoing assessment proceedings under the Act, without making recourse to revised return, despite the fact that time limit for revising return under section 139(5) had expired. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Dispute Resolution Panel

ZULFI RAVDJEE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Zulfi Ravdjee Vs. A.C.I.T. Hyderabad Circle 14(1) Pan:Aeapa2227H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao,Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.6.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction Under The Name & Style Of Az Developer. It Has Undertaken Two Contract Works, One At Moinabad & The Second One At Kompally & Also Maintaining The Building “Alcazar Plaza & Towers”. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.33,76,600/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2)/142(1) Were Served On The Assessee In Response To Which

256 ITR 701) where it has been held that it is the duty of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the payments, made addition of Rs.85,56,088/- being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs.8,55,60,883/-. 4. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs.1,00,764/- being 30% of the expenditure of Rs.3

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, because, one of the objects of the assessee company is to make investment in subsidiary companies. In our considered view, on this aspect also assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT fails.\n\n12. It is a well settled principle of law by various decisions of courts including the decision