SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

C) No. 31962 of 2011, held that, the ROC fee paid for increase in authorised capital of the company falls under the provisions of Section 35D of the Act and therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction towards 1/5th of the said expenditure for a period of five years. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

C) No. 593/08), submitted that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 41,06,748.00 to its P&L account of which a sum of Rs. 29,49,088.00 stood for the unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation. According to the learned counsel, the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting. According to the learned counsel, under

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

C) No. 593/08), submitted that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 41,06,748.00 to its P&L account of which a sum of Rs. 29,49,088.00 stood for the unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation. According to the learned counsel, the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting. According to the learned counsel, under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

c) Rule 11 UA gives an option to appellant to value the share on the valuation date either under Net asset value as prescribed or DCF method. In this case appellant chose the DCF method since option was given to appellant under the provisions of the Act and Rules. As per rule 11 UA of 1962 Rules, the Fair Market

M/S COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Holidays Ltd (Formerly Tax, Circle 3 (2) Known As Country Club Hyderabad India Ltd) Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc8276B (Appellant) (Respondent)

C) No. 593/08), submitted that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 41,06,748.00 to its P&L account of which a sum of Rs. 29,49,088.00 stood for the unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation. According to the learned counsel, the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting. According to the learned counsel, under

M/S N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

disallowed under ICDS adjustment. Similarly, the assessee has credited Government grant into Profit & Loss account, however, because of reduction of entire amount of grants from the cost of the asset, the same has been reduced from the total income. Similarly, the assessee has incurred finance and other incidental cost of borrowings and the same has been amortised over a period

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)

2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee to treat the amount of Rs.1,74,17,720/- as pre-operative expenditure in spite of the fact that the assessee had not submitted any evidences to prove that the said expenditure is of revenue expenditure. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee

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.

section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through she has deleted the above addition. 7) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not cancelling the penalty proceedings ix] s 271 (1 )( c) initiated by the Assessing Officer, when the appel1ant has neither concealed any particulars of income nor resorted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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.

section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through she has deleted the above addition. 7) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not cancelling the penalty proceedings ix] s 271 (1 )( c) initiated by the Assessing Officer, when the appel1ant has neither concealed any particulars of income nor resorted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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

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

c) Add: 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

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

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

c) Add: 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

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

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

c) Add: 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

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 2

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 2

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]

35D of the Act and to allow 1/5th of the Page 3 of 17 ITA No. 781/Hyd/2020 & total fee paid for increase in Technical Ground authorized share capital. 5. (a) The CIT (A) has erred in not deleting the disallowance on Depreciation of Rs. 13,38,390/- on commercial Trucks. (b) The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact

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]

35D of the Act and to allow 1/5th of the Page 3 of 17 ITA No. 781/Hyd/2020 & total fee paid for increase in Technical Ground authorized share capital. 5. (a) The CIT (A) has erred in not deleting the disallowance on Depreciation of Rs. 13,38,390/- on commercial Trucks. (b) The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact

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 35D(2) of the I.T.Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 14. Grounds of appeal No. 4 and 5 relate to the order of the ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.3

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 35D(2) of the I.T.Act. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 14. Grounds of appeal No. 4 and 5 relate to the order of the ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.3