COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

35,86,748/- under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 18.03.2014 and determined the total income at Rs. 3,86,61,671/-. The case was subsequently reopened under Section 147 of the Act, for the reasons

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and addition towards Form 26AS mismatch. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A., referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.12.2024, submitted

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of donations under Section 80G towards CSR expenditure. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate, referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024, submitted that, the assessment

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.10 crores in AY.2011-12 and Rs.4 crores in AY.2012-13; respectively. The CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion in issue reads as follows: “5.0 Addition on account of unexplained expenditure/disallowance u/s.40A(3) and declarations made u/s.132(4), but not admitted in return of income - Rs.10,00,00,000 /-: 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, conducted

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.10 crores in AY.2011-12 and Rs.4 crores in AY.2012-13; respectively. The CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion in issue reads as follows: “5.0 Addition on account of unexplained expenditure/disallowance u/s.40A(3) and declarations made u/s.132(4), but not admitted in return of income - Rs.10,00,00,000 /-: 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, conducted

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 1,42,72,621/-, and MAT adjustment u/s 115JB amounting to Rs. 10,57,25,727/-, along with addition of book profit u/s 115JB of Rs. 10,57,25,727/-. 6. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, assessee has filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 27.01.2017. Considering the objections

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

35) is of no help to the revenue inasmuch as that was a case involving penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That penalty being impossible for concealment of income consequent to scrutiny assessment ITA No.912/Hyd/2024 23 order under Section 143(3) of the Act, it has no application to the present facts involving demand of additional

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

section 35(1)(1). 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing certain marketing expenditure incurred towards doctor's for attending conferences, travel, hospitality, etc., as expenditure prohibited by law and shall not be deemed to have incurred for the purpose of business. 8 ITA.Nos.490 & 491/Hyd./2022

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

section 35(1)(1). 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing certain marketing expenditure incurred towards doctor's for attending conferences, travel, hospitality, etc., as expenditure prohibited by law and shall not be deemed to have incurred for the purpose of business. 8 ITA.Nos.490 & 491/Hyd./2022

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

disallowed the deduction in respect of the same. 49. In the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held that the activity of the assessee falls in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 35

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DR.REDDY'S LABORATOREIS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

disallowed the deduction in respect of the same. 49. In the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held that the activity of the assessee falls in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 35

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

disallowed the deduction in respect of the same. 49. In the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held that the activity of the assessee falls in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 35

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

disallowed the deduction in respect of the same. 49. In the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held that the activity of the assessee falls in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 35

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

disallowed the deduction in respect of the same. 49. In the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held that the activity of the assessee falls in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 35

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

disallowed the deduction in respect of the same. 49. In the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held that the activity of the assessee falls in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 35

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub- section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success