MATRIX SEA FOODS INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (OSD) WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Matrix Sea Foods Vs. Acit ( Osd ) India Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(4) Pan:Aaecm4113H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance to the extent of Rs.6,01,275/- is upheld. Accordingly, we direct

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) in his order dated 04-02-2011 gave partial relief. The assessee as well as the department preferred appeal before ITAT, Hyderabad. The Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in its order dated 28.12.2012 disposed off both the appeals. The income of the assessee was arrived

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) in his order dated 04-02-2011 gave partial relief. The assessee as well as the department preferred appeal before ITAT, Hyderabad. The Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in its order dated 28.12.2012 disposed off both the appeals. The income of the assessee was arrived

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) in his order dated 04-02-2011 gave partial relief. The assessee as well as the department preferred appeal before ITAT, Hyderabad. The Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in its order dated 28.12.2012 disposed off both the appeals. The income of the assessee was arrived

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) in his order dated 04-02-2011 gave partial relief. The assessee as well as the department preferred appeal before ITAT, Hyderabad. The Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in its order dated 28.12.2012 disposed off both the appeals. The income of the assessee was arrived

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing as under : “7.4 I have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT (supra) wherein the issue of the assessee's eligibility

HARSHINI EPC PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

275. 9. Vibha Agrotech Limited Vs. DCIT – ITA No.179/Hyd/2018. 13. Per contra, ld. DR had submitted that the amendment under section 14A of the Act is introduced by the Finance Act, 2022 is retrospective in nature and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the claim of the assessee. Further, he had relied upon the CBDT’s Circular No.5/2014 dt.11/02/2014

B. JANARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2008-09

disallowances made by the A.O were confirmed by the ITAT only because the assessee has not been able to explain the investments to the extent of Rs. 1,15,000/- in the Serilingampalli property and also unexplained cash found at the time of search of Rs. 5 lakhs. He submitted that these may be grounds for making and confirming

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

disallowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing as under : “7.4 I have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT (supra) wherein the issue of the assessee's eligibility

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

disallowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing as under : “7.4 I have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT (supra) wherein the issue of the assessee's eligibility

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

275] (SC); as considered in Jagati Publications Ltd. Vs. President (2015) [377 ITR 31] (Bombay) that a Special Bench’s constitution has to be in light of the foregoing regulation or by the hon’ble President, ITAT as per the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case which nowhere exist as the assessee itself has not even preferred

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

275] (SC); as considered in Jagati Publications Ltd. Vs. President (2015) [377 ITR 31] (Bombay) that a Special Bench’s constitution has to be in light of the foregoing regulation or by the hon’ble President, ITAT as per the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case which nowhere exist as the assessee itself has not even preferred

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

275] (SC); as considered in Jagati Publications Ltd. Vs. President (2015) [377 ITR 31] (Bombay) that a Special Bench’s constitution has to be in light of the foregoing regulation or by the hon’ble President, ITAT as per the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case which nowhere exist as the assessee itself has not even preferred

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

275] (SC); as considered in Jagati Publications Ltd. Vs. President (2015) [377 ITR 31] (Bombay) that a Special Bench’s constitution has to be in light of the foregoing regulation or by the hon’ble President, ITAT as per the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case which nowhere exist as the assessee itself has not even preferred

P.C. PANTULU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals for the AYs

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 71(2A) was introduced w.e.f. 01-04-2005, wherein business loss cannot be set-off to salary income but for the impugned assessment years, the business loss can be set-off to salary income and therefore the action of AO in disallowing the business loss is not correct. :- 4 -: I.T.A. Nos. 275

P.C. PANTULU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals for the AYs

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 71(2A) was introduced w.e.f. 01-04-2005, wherein business loss cannot be set-off to salary income but for the impugned assessment years, the business loss can be set-off to salary income and therefore the action of AO in disallowing the business loss is not correct. :- 4 -: I.T.A. Nos. 275

P.C. PANTULU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals for the AYs

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 71(2A) was introduced w.e.f. 01-04-2005, wherein business loss cannot be set-off to salary income but for the impugned assessment years, the business loss can be set-off to salary income and therefore the action of AO in disallowing the business loss is not correct. :- 4 -: I.T.A. Nos. 275

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 119 of the Act and the assessee had filed the return of income within such due date on 01/11/2004. However, the Ld. AO had levied interest U/s. 234A of the Act for default in furnishing the return of income. Since these facts are not verified by the Ld. AO as well as not addressed