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

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

disallowability of FCCB related expenses, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to examine the issue of allowability or otherwise of the expenses, keeping in view the ratio of various decisions relied upon by both the parties and as discussed by the Tribunal in its order. Against the order of the ITAT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARCHEESH HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, K V RANGA REDDY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 35D of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, there is no error in the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

35D. 2. The CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.8,87,500/-. 3. The CIT (A) erred in ignoring CBDT’s Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014. 4. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT VS Walfort Share of Stock Brokers P Ltd [326 ITR 1J. wherein

MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

35D. 2. The CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.8,87,500/-. 3. The CIT (A) erred in ignoring CBDT’s Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014. 4. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT VS Walfort Share of Stock Brokers P Ltd [326 ITR 1J. wherein

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. BHAGYANAGAR INDIA LTD., SEC-BAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bhagyanagar India Circle-1(2), Ltd., Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan: Aaacb 8963 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 Order

section 35D of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that the Act allows expenditure such as underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus towards issue for public subscription, shares, debentures and not any other expenditure related to issue for public subscription, shares, debentures. Further, the finding of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that

C.M.D. RATNAKAR DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD vs. JASPER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

Section 35D of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) had also directed the AO to delete the adhoc disallowance made towards un-proved

JASPER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

Section 35D of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) had also directed the AO to delete the adhoc disallowance made towards un-proved

SURYACHAKRA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowing Section 35D deduction of :- 2 -: Rs.65,37,790/- in the course of assessment as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order

DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

35D of the Act, we find that the AO as well as DRP have disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has no furnished the details of the said expenditure and also as to haw the assessee has satisfied condition of cl. (c) of sub section

DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

35D of the Act, we find that the AO as well as DRP have disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has no furnished the details of the said expenditure and also as to haw the assessee has satisfied condition of cl. (c) of sub section

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. FARMAX INDIA LTD., HYD, R.R.DIST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Farmax India Limited Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(3) 4Th Floor, Alluri Trade Centre I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Bhagayanagar Colony Masab Tank Opp.Kphb Colony Hyderabad Kukatpally Hyderabad-500 072

section 40A(3) should not be invoked. In absence of any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.3,78,642/- being disallowances u/s. 40A(3). Similarly, the AO noted that assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.2,76,270/- which included Rs.2,75,000/- being subscription towards increase in share capital. This being a capital

FARMAX INDIA LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Farmax India Limited Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(3) 4Th Floor, Alluri Trade Centre I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Bhagayanagar Colony Masab Tank Opp.Kphb Colony Hyderabad Kukatpally Hyderabad-500 072

section 40A(3) should not be invoked. In absence of any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs.3,78,642/- being disallowances u/s. 40A(3). Similarly, the AO noted that assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs.2,76,270/- which included Rs.2,75,000/- being subscription towards increase in share capital. This being a capital

CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

section 35D of the Income Tax Act. 1961 is accepted. We find that nowhere from the orders of revenue authorities that the earlier year expenditure has been disallowed

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Disallowance of claim u/s 35D 9,00,000/- (d) Add: Income from other sources as admitted Rs. (e) Taxable Income 3,67,500/- While arriving at the above said total income of Rs.27,41,80,859/-, the Assessing Officer has denied the deduction claimed u/s 80IA for Rs.21,26,74,525/-. The relevant discussion on the rejection of claim

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Disallowance of claim u/s 35D 9,00,000/- (d) Add: Income from other sources as admitted Rs. (e) Taxable Income 3,67,500/- While arriving at the above said total income of Rs.27,41,80,859/-, the Assessing Officer has denied the deduction claimed u/s 80IA for Rs.21,26,74,525/-. The relevant discussion on the rejection of claim

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Disallowance of claim u/s 35D 9,00,000/- (d) Add: Income from other sources as admitted Rs. (e) Taxable Income 3,67,500/- While arriving at the above said total income of Rs.27,41,80,859/-, the Assessing Officer has denied the deduction claimed u/s 80IA for Rs.21,26,74,525/-. The relevant discussion on the rejection of claim

TRINITY CLEANTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance of Rs.14,75,850/- towards ROC expenditure without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 10. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Assessing Officer erred in making addition on account of ROC fee ignoring the fact that the fee was paid towards increase in authorized share capital of the company and such incremental share

TRINITY CLEANTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance of Rs.14,75,850/- towards ROC expenditure without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 10. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Assessing Officer erred in making addition on account of ROC fee ignoring the fact that the fee was paid towards increase in authorized share capital of the company and such incremental share