THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 36(1)(viia) and also 36(2)(v). The argument of the assessee that the entire claim for Bad Debts return of is to be allowed U/s. 36(1)(vii). Is also not acceptable for the reason that as per the proviso to Sec.36(1)(vii). ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 9 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 36(1)(viia) and also 36(2)(v). The argument of the assessee that the entire claim for Bad Debts return of is to be allowed U/s. 36(1)(vii). Is also not acceptable for the reason that as per the proviso to Sec.36(1)(vii). ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 9 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 36(1)(viia) and also 36(2)(v). The argument of the assessee that the entire claim for Bad Debts return of is to be allowed U/s. 36(1)(vii). Is also not acceptable for the reason that as per the proviso to Sec.36(1)(vii). ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 9 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 36(1)(viia) and also 36(2)(v). The argument of the assessee that the entire claim for Bad Debts return of is to be allowed U/s. 36(1)(vii). Is also not acceptable for the reason that as per the proviso to Sec.36(1)(vii). ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 9 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 36(1)(viia) and also 36(2)(v). The argument of the assessee that the entire claim for Bad Debts return of is to be allowed U/s. 36(1)(vii). Is also not acceptable for the reason that as per the proviso to Sec.36(1)(vii). ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 9 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 36(1)(viia) and also 36(2)(v). The argument of the assessee that the entire claim for Bad Debts return of is to be allowed U/s. 36(1)(vii). Is also not acceptable for the reason that as per the proviso to Sec.36(1)(vii). ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 9 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

sections 36(1)(viia) and also 36(2)(v). The argument of the assessee that the entire claim for Bad Debts return of is to be allowed U/s. 36(1)(vii). Is also not acceptable for the reason that as per the proviso to Sec.36(1)(vii). ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 9 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

1) The ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. Whether the ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that the provisions of Section 80IA(4) of the Act are applicable to constituent of the joint venture / consortia ? 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

section 32(1)(iia) was disallowed as the assessee was entitled to depreciation only at 20% for assets used for less than 180 days, instead of the claimed 35%. Consequently, these disallowances were added back to the income returned, concluding the assessment with substantial adjustments. Thus, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. 4

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section include: 1. Mathematical Errors - Correction of any arithmetical or clerical errors in the return. 2. Incorrect Claims - Disallowance of incorrect claims that are apparent from the information provided in the return. 3. Disallowance of Losses - If carried-forward losses or deductions are claimed without filing the required supporting documents or returns in previous years. 4

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

4. Thereafter, the AO, after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance under section 14A r.w rule 8D: Rs. 74,92,000/-; (ii) disallowance of the claim of the assessee company for deduction under section 80G w.r.t CSR donations: Rs. 1

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts have rightly disallowed penalty paid to RBI for violation of section 46(4

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

disallowance\nof deduction u/s 801A(4) in terms of provision of section\n80AC, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in giving her\nfinding that deduction not claimed in original return u/s\n139(1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1) of section 139. In view of the above, he held that the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA of the I.T.Act. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above, the AO further held that since the assessee is a works contractor and the company executes the contracts only and not a developer, therefore, the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1) of section 139. In view of the above, he held that the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA of the I.T.Act. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above, the AO further held that since the assessee is a works contractor and the company executes the contracts only and not a developer, therefore, the assessee

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

section 36(1)(viii) an amount not exceeding 20% of the profits derived from eligible business and carried to such reserve account is allowed as deduction. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.165 crores, whereas the Assessing Officer has allowed deduction of Rs.72,76,60,770/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs.92,23,39,229/-. The Assessing Officer

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

section 36(1)(viii) an amount not exceeding 20% of the profits derived from eligible business and carried to such reserve account is allowed as deduction. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.165 crores, whereas the Assessing Officer has allowed deduction of Rs.72,76,60,770/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs.92,23,39,229/-. The Assessing Officer

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

section 36(1)(viii) an amount not exceeding 20% of the profits derived from eligible business and carried to such reserve account is allowed as deduction. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.165 crores, whereas the Assessing Officer has allowed deduction of Rs.72,76,60,770/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs.92,23,39,229/-. The Assessing Officer