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)

43,41,133/- booked by the assessee attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

43,59,091/- alone could be attributed for business purpose and the balance out of Rs. 3,40,59,486/- claimed by the assessee as interest has to be treated as for non-business purpose. Since the learned Assessing Officer disallowed only a sum of Rs. 1,52,31,375/- on this score, learned CIT(A) thought it fit that

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

43,59,091/- alone could be attributed for business purpose and the balance out of Rs. 3,40,59,486/- claimed by the assessee as interest has to be treated as for non-business purpose. Since the learned Assessing Officer disallowed only a sum of Rs. 1,52,31,375/- on this score, learned CIT(A) thought it fit that

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

43,59,091/- alone could be attributed for business purpose and the balance out of Rs. 3,40,59,486/- claimed by the assessee as interest has to be treated as for non-business purpose. Since the learned Assessing Officer disallowed only a sum of Rs. 1,52,31,375/- on this score, learned CIT(A) thought it fit that

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 of finance charges to an extent of Rs.79,87,930/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 43

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 of finance charges to an extent of Rs.79,87,930/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 43

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 of finance charges to an extent of Rs.79,87,930/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 43

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 of finance charges to an extent of Rs.79,87,930/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 43

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 of finance charges to an extent of Rs.79,87,930/-, however, deleted the addition made under Section 14A of the Act. 43

S & P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 463/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

43(1) of the Act does not affect the right of the amalgamated company to claim depreciation as it would operate where an asset is acquired by amalgamating company, without incurring any financial outlay and such asset is transferred to amalgamated company without incurring any financial outlay. In the instant case, excess consideration is paid for goodwill, the explanation

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

disallowed a sum of Rs.933,43,12,325/- under the head “Any other item or items of addition under section

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

disallowed a sum of Rs.933,43,12,325/- under the head “Any other item or items of addition under section

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

TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance of contribution to pension and gratuity trust under section 43B of the Act for Rs.21,92,43,000/- disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Hyderabad Singareni Collieries Company Limited Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

disallowed investment allowance under Section 32AC of Rs.272,15,43,386/- on assumption that electricity is not an article or thing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SUPER DAIRY FARM., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of the same amount, thereby violating Article 265 and Article 20(2) of Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice.” 12.2. Per contra, the ld.DR has submitted that there was no enhancement by the ld.CIT(A) and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is without any merit. In this regard, ld.DR has filed

SUPER DAIRY FARM.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of the same amount, thereby violating Article 265 and Article 20(2) of Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice.” 12.2. Per contra, the ld.DR has submitted that there was no enhancement by the ld.CIT(A) and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is without any merit. In this regard, ld.DR has filed

SUPER DAIRY FARM.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of the same amount, thereby violating Article 265 and Article 20(2) of Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice.” 12.2. Per contra, the ld.DR has submitted that there was no enhancement by the ld.CIT(A) and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is without any merit. In this regard, ld.DR has filed