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

disallowance of 1% of the total expenses of the cement division, alleging inflation of non-eligible business expenditure and understatement of eligible business expenditure of the assessee company to enhance its claim for deduction under section 801A of the Act: Rs. 16.31 crores; and (iv). addition of scrap sales and interest income on the ground that the same

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

34) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. The Assessing Officer further noted that, assessee has made suo motu disallowance of expenditure of Rs.5,000/- u/sec.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer, called-upon the assessee to explain as to why disallowance contemplated u/sec.14A of the Act shall not be disallowed by invoking Rule

JASPER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance under Section 14A, even though no income exempt under Section 10(34) or Section 10(38) was claimed as exempt

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of the said payments under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not correct. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted. 34

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of the said payments under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not correct. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted. 34

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of the said payments under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not correct. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted. 34

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

section 80G of the Act in respect of such donations which\nformed part of the spend towards CSR. Respectfully following the\njurisdictional tribunal, ground no 3 is allowed.\n5. Ground No.4 is raised against disallowance of business expenses\non estimate basis amounting to Rs.16,31,00,000/- on account of\ndeduction U/s 80IA. During the assessment proceedings, the AO\ncalled

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

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

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules are applicable to the facts of the case, and proceeded to make addition under 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules to reach the figure of disallowance at Rs. 3,71,27,320/-. Learned Assessing Officer, however, restricted the same

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules are applicable to the facts of the case, and proceeded to make addition under 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules to reach the figure of disallowance at Rs. 3,71,27,320/-. Learned Assessing Officer, however, restricted the same

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules are applicable to the facts of the case, and proceeded to make addition under 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules to reach the figure of disallowance at Rs. 3,71,27,320/-. Learned Assessing Officer, however, restricted the same

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for\nboth the

34) and 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once\nthere is no exemption of any income, then, expenses\nrelatable to said income should be allowed in total. The\nlearned PCIT, without appreciating these facts, has simply\nset-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing\nOfficer on the issue of disallowance under section

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

34) and 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once there is no exemption of any income, then, expenses relatable to said income should be allowed in total. The learned PCIT, without appreciating these facts, has simply set-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the issue of disallowance under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80- IA(4) of the Act shall not be allowed. Accordingly learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim. 34. In appeal