INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED, HYDERABAB

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft\nof any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Section 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act. The\nTribunal while restoring the matter to the file of the CIT(A) had observed,\nas under:\n“4. We now advert to the sole issue raised in assessee's grounds\npertaining to disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft\nof any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Section 801A r.w.s 33B of the Act. The\nTribunal while restoring the matter to the file of the CIT(A) had observed,\nas under:\n“4. We now advert to the sole issue raised in assessee's grounds\npertaining to disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft\nof any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Section 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act. The\nTribunal while restoring the matter to the file of the CIT(A) had observed,\nas under:\n“4. We now advert to the sole issue raised in assessee's grounds\npertaining to disallowance

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowed; , and (iii) how extending liabilities were shown in the financials or books of account. The assessee filed its detailed reply. However, ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he held that deal value of the shares was INR 5,978 crores while the corresponding investment recorded in the books of assessee is INR 4,386/- and the differential amount

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowed; , and (iii) how extending liabilities were shown in the financials or books of account. The assessee filed its detailed reply. However, ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he held that deal value of the shares was INR 5,978 crores while the corresponding investment recorded in the books of assessee is INR 4,386/- and the differential amount

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

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 80IB(11A) of the Act, were duly filed online by Mr. PSRVV Surya Rao, Chartered Accountant 79 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. [Membership No. 202367], Partner at A. Ramachandra Rao & Co. [FRN no. 002857S]; (iii). that the signed copies of all the “Form 10CCBs” (alongwith the screenshots of the acknowledgments downloaded from the Income

STARS MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 13/Hyd/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Stars Multipurpose Vs. Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative Society Of Income Tax, Limited, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aakas6153R] अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/11/2023 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Mumbai, (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29/10/2018 Admitting ‘Nil’ Income. The Cpc Bengaluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(“ The Act”), Dated 22/10/2019 Disallowed The Provident Fund Payment & Esi Fund Payment Of Rs. 14,56,847/- On The Reason That The Said Payments Are Not Allowable U/S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act & Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,56,847/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.5,59,053/-.

33B which is discontinued in the circumstances specified in that section, and, thereafter, at any time before the expiry of the period of three years referred to in that section, such business is re- established, reconstructed or revived by the assessee, so much of the loss as is attributable to such business shall be carried forward to the assessment year

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of CSR expenses of Rs. 1,42,97,133/- against the returned income of Rs. 50,81,16,931/-. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved, the assessee raised certain objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also going through the material available on record, dismissed the objections raised by the assessee. Thereafter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI vs. T RAMA SUBBA REDDY , ADONI

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance of Rs.4.64 lakhs. No appeal was filed against this order dated 19:03- 2013.Thus, order u/s 143(3) attained finality. 6 . 3 Later CIT passed order u/s 263 dated 23/03/2015. Again, in this order, the only issue set aside by the CIT was with regard to the re-computation of Capital Gain on the sum of Rs.4.67 cr. This