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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to\nsection 37(1) of the Act.\nThe company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the\ndonation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief\nFund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with 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

2 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 deduction u/s 80G of the Act. Accordingly, assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,33,27,000/-. 5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the deduction under section 80G of the Act stating that CSR expenditure incurred u/s 135 of Companies Act is categorically disallowed under 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

2 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 deduction u/s 80G of the Act. Accordingly, assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,33,27,000/-. 5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the deduction under section 80G of the Act stating that CSR expenditure incurred u/s 135 of Companies Act is categorically disallowed 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. Situation 2 : The company

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

37(1) of the Act, they suo moto disallowed the same while computing the business income, but since there is no bar or restriction on deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim such contribution as deduction under section 80G of the Act. Page 2

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

37(1) of the Act, they suo moto disallowed the same while computing the business income, but since there is no bar or restriction on deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim such contribution as deduction under section 80G of the Act. Page 2

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

37,30,191 |\n5. 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, in the written submissions furnished to the AO on 21-4-2022 in response to notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, the appellant reiterated the explanation furnished by MSN Reddy, the Managing Director of the appellant company, in the sworn statement dated

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure against the unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs. In the process, the assessee purchased various solvents and used them for manufacturing bulk drugs. The used solvents

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

2) of the Act, which is mandatory for initiating scrutiny proceedings. 4. The LD. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant under section 145 of the Act, and thereafter making separate additions on specific items, which is untenable once the books have been rejected and income

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and the Revenue\nare partly allowed

disallowance of claim of deduction of\nexpenditure against the unaccounted cash receipts from sale of\nspent solvents / scrap. The facts with regard to the impugned\ndispute are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and\nsale of bulk drugs. In the process, the assessee purchased various\nsolvents and used them for manufacturing bulk drugs. The used\nsolvents

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

37,592/-. Thus, the AO has calculated the income twice for the same disallowance and gave a demand notice of almost double the liability. The AO made an addition that the appellant has violated provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and applied provisions of section 164(2

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

disallowed this deduction, arguing that interest on income tax (under Sections 234B and 234C) forms part of \"tax\" as per Section 2(43) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, which prohibits the deduction of \"any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business

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(1) connotes "what is paid out" and that which has gone irretrievably

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure against\nthe unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap.\nThe facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee\nis engaged in the manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs. In the\nprocess, the assessee purchased various solvents and used them for\nmanufacturing bulk drugs. The used solvents

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. MSN PHARMACHEM PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure against\nthe unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents / scrap.\nThe facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee\nis engaged in the manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs. In the\nprocess, the assessee purchased various solvents and used them for\nmanufacturing bulk drugs. The used solvents

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2), which is contrary to the provisions of law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of expenditure Ra. 16,33,050/- made by the AO without properly considering the submissions made by the assessee. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not adjudicating the ground no. 2 by the appellant assailing that