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 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 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

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