ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27,840/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has not deleted the addition and in fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27,840/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has not deleted the addition and in fact

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27,840/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has not deleted the addition and in fact

BALA REDDY GOPU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 14A cannot be invoked without proper satisfaction recorded by the AO. For this proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of Reliance Capital. He also submitted that CIT(A) has enhanced the addition to the extent of Rs. 35,13,391/- by observing that the expenditure disallowable

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE- ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

391/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and challenged the additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 27.11.2017, partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), the assessee, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

391/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and challenged the additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 27.11.2017, partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), the assessee, as well

UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

391/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and challenged the additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 27.11.2017, partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), the assessee, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

391/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and challenged the additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 27.11.2017, partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), the assessee, as well

C & K MANAGEMENT LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 C&K Management Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4481D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. Maruthi Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivas Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - 1, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 04/05/2018 For Ay 2013-14 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Ao Disallowed Rs.58,170/-W.R.T Pf & Esi Payments Stating This Amount Is Not Paid Before The Due

Section 43B by inserting corresponding Explanations that although the impugned employees provident fund comes under the former provision only, the same is :- 6 -: C&K Management Ltd., Sec’bad. applicable from 01-04-2021 onwards. Meaning thereby that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01-04-2021. We thus delete the impugned employees provident fund disallowance

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

391/-. Thus, for computing the business income the expenditure mentioned in sections 28 to 44DB has to be allowed from the gross receipts of the assessee and similarly the disallowances

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be unlawful Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence, if any one says

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be unlawful Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence, if any one says

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be unlawful Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence, if any one says

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

391 ITR 274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a "deduction provision" and not an "exemption provision". Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as "Exemption" or Deduction" provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

391 ITR 274 (Supreme Court), held that section 10A of the Act is a "deduction provision" and not an "exemption provision". Therefore, apparently there seems to be a difference of opinion to whether section 10A/B provisions qualify as "Exemption" or Deduction" provisions. Therefore, since it is well-settled principle of law that deduction provisions, which have been introduced

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

sections 391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 was approved by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide their Order dated 15.12.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010. The Telugu TV channels namely "ETV Telugu" and "ETV 2" clubbed together and transferred to M/s. Eenadu Television Private Limited. The assessee-company has filed its return of income for the impugned assessment

VENKATESH DAGGUBATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section: 37 of 'the Act. The Assessing Officer has been generous enough to allow 50% of the expenditure considering the profession of the appellant .and the appellant has also not denied that the family had accompanied him-for the trip and the; proportionate payment was incurred by the family. In view of the above, the action of the Assessing Officer

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

disallowed the claim on the short ground that the benefit is not available to the appellant as the notification specifying Ranga Reddy District as backward area was published on 20.07.2016 and therefore the Appellant Company is not eligible to the deduction as the addition and installation of the machinery were made prior to the said date. Aggrieved with the action

WINDSOR HOME OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIKARABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16 Windsor Home Owners Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Welfare Association, Ward – 1, Vikarabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaaw 4867G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Smt. Esther N. Hongal Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2019 O R D E R

disallowed by applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) rws 28(iii) of the Act. Assessee replied that the society is a mutual benefit society and therefore entire surplus is exempt from income-tax and the principles of mutuality are applicable in its case. AO, however, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case