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 Rs. 2,91,30,153/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 2,90,67,733/- and the balance amount of Rs. 62,420/- is upheld. 42

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their

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. He considered the decisions relied upon by the assessee viz-a-viz the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 to reach a conclusion that when once there is an exempt income from the investments and there is a claim of interest expenses

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. He considered the decisions relied upon by the assessee viz-a-viz the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 to reach a conclusion that when once there is an exempt income from the investments and there is a claim of interest expenses

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. He considered the decisions relied upon by the assessee viz-a-viz the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 to reach a conclusion that when once there is an exempt income from the investments and there is a claim of interest expenses

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

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

Section 37(1) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 32. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 33. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of cash discount

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024

disallowed deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, for Rs. 51,05,42,962/- and added it back

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

42,098/-, disallowance of depreciation of non-compete fee of Rs.2,22,932/- and disallowance of expenditure claimed on weighted deduction under section

ANANDA PRASAD VENIGALA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1384/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Ananda Prasad Venigala, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aewpp1096B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ananda Prasad Venigala (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 18.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can be made. However, on being confronted with the computation of income placed at page no.1 of the paper book, the Ld. AR acknowledged that the assessee had shown exempt income of Rs.2,42

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has disallowed the 80IA deduction stating that the Joint venture has entered into agreement with the Government and not the appellant. Therefore, the AO averred that it is the Joint venture which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has disallowed the 80IA deduction stating that the Joint venture has entered into agreement with the Government and not the appellant. Therefore, the AO averred that it is the Joint venture which

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has disallowed the 80IA deduction stating that the Joint venture has entered into agreement with the Government and not the appellant. Therefore, the AO averred that it is the Joint venture which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has disallowed the 80IA deduction stating that the Joint venture has entered into agreement with the Government and not the appellant. Therefore, the AO averred that it is the Joint venture which

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has disallowed the 80IA deduction stating that the Joint venture has entered into agreement with the Government and not the appellant. Therefore, the AO averred that it is the Joint venture which