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)

44,45,893/- and added the same under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 50. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 51. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted relevant details and argued that the A.O. had disallowed

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

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

44. Further, learned Assessing Officer originally computed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules

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

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

44. Further, learned Assessing Officer originally computed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules

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

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

44. Further, learned Assessing Officer originally computed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 44

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 44

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 44

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 44

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 44

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. BHAGYANAGAR INDIA LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1200/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Income Tax Officer, M/S. Bhagyanagar India Ward-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan:Aaacb8963C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 16.05.2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was warranted in the present facts, particularly when no fresh investments were made during the year under consideration. On perusal of the audited balance sheet of the assessee placed at page no.59 of the paper book no.1, we note that the total investments of the assessee as on 31.03.2015 stood at Rs.27

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

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

section 35(2AB) of the Act and disallowance u/se.14A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the appellant company and the Revenue are now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The first issue that came-up for consideration from grounds of appeal of the appellant company is, TP adjustment in respect of sale

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 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following similar reasonings, this ground

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 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following similar reasonings, this ground

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 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following similar reasonings, this ground

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 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following similar reasonings, this ground

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 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following similar reasonings, this ground

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 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following similar reasonings, this ground