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

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

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 13. As stated above, one of the main arguments advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Department before us was that the word "expenditure" in Section 37

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.

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 13. As stated above, one of the main arguments advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the 19 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. Department before us was that the word "expenditure" in Section 37

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.

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 13. As stated above, one of the main arguments advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the 19 ITA.Nos.1689 & 1735 /Hyd/2012, M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. Department before us was that the word "expenditure" in Section 37

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)

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 13. As stated above, one of the main arguments advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Department before us was that the word "expenditure" in Section 37

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed under section 37 of the Act, and, therefore, on similar logic deduction under section 80G cannot be allowed. Learned

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed under section 37 of the Act, and, therefore, on similar logic deduction under section 80G cannot be allowed. Learned

GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 11. The dispute in this batch of civil appeals centers around the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under section 37

POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section

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

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

disallowed ROC charges paid of Rs. 5,72,481/- on the ground that, the expenditure incurred towards increase in authorised capital of the assessee company is capital in nature and the same cannot be allowed under Section 37

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Hyderabad Singareni Collieries Company Limited Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

disallowed under Section 40A(9) and is allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Your Appellant

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 subcontract payments to Bathini Infra and Shankarapally under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Rs.5,47,454/- and Rs.4,13,765/-, respectively. 37

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 subcontract payments to Bathini Infra and Shankarapally under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Rs.5,47,454/- and Rs.4,13,765/-, respectively. 37

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 subcontract payments to Bathini Infra and Shankarapally under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Rs.5,47,454/- and Rs.4,13,765/-, respectively. 37

APEX URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we herein direct the AO to vacate the disallowance of Rs. 13,200/- made by him. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Apex Urban Infrastructure Vs. Dcit, Private Limited, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aafcp1027Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 31/10/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Company Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

section 37(1) of the Act, interest on late payment of service tax is an extension of tax liability and accordingly, such interest is allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) had grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules by adding an amount equal to one half percentage of the average value of the total investment, which yielded the exempt income. Aggrieved by the finding of the learned CIT(A), assessee preferred appeal in ITA No. 386/Hyd/2015. 37

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

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules by adding an amount equal to one half percentage of the average value of the total investment, which yielded the exempt income. Aggrieved by the finding of the learned CIT(A), assessee preferred appeal in ITA No. 386/Hyd/2015. 37