ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

sections": [ "14A", "8D", "234B", "234C", "40(a)(ii)", "37", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether disallowance under Section 14A/Rule 8D should be confined

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowed the\naforesaid claim of the assessee company on the ground that CSR\nexpenditure is mandatory in nature and allowing deduction of the same\nunder section 80G would result in indirect subsidisation by the\nGovernment. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that section 37

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

37,69,646/- during the year under consideration.\nTherefore, the existence of exempt income during the year is not in dispute. In\nsuch circumstances, merely because certain investments have not yielded\nexempt income during the year, the entire disallowance made under Section

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

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

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

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

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

disallowed under section 40A(9) and is allowable\nunder section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n4. Your Appellant

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

disallowed under Section 40A(9) and is allowable\nunder Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n4. Your Appellant

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 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