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

disallowance of 80G deduction amounting to Rs.1,88,97,644 claimed against CSR expenditure. The company extended following donations out of the CSR expenses; Details of Donations made during the FY 2016-17 Name of the Party Amount in (Rs) Pioneer Education Trust 2,88,45,288 Utkarsh Star Mitra Mandal 50,00,000 Sri Sringeri Peetham Charitable Trust

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 advertisement expenses of Rs. 45,000/- cannot be sustained. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 45,000/- made under Section

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 advertisement expenses of Rs. 45,000/- cannot be sustained. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 45,000/- made under Section

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 advertisement expenses of Rs. 45,000/- cannot be sustained. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 45,000/- made under Section

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

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

45. Coming to the last plea of the assessee that the administrative charges at one half percentage shall only be in respect of the investment which yielded the exempt income and the total disallowance under section

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

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

45. Coming to the last plea of the assessee that the administrative charges at one half percentage shall only be in respect of the investment which yielded the exempt income and the total disallowance under section

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

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

45. Coming to the last plea of the assessee that the administrative charges at one half percentage shall only be in respect of the investment which yielded the exempt income and the total disallowance under section

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

disallowance of 80G deduction\namounting to Rs.1,88,97,644 claimed against CSR expenditure. The\ncompany extended following donations out of the CSR expenses;\nDetails of Donations made during the FY 2016-17\nName of the Party\nAmount in (Rs)\nPioneer Education Trust\n2,88,45,288\nUtkarsh Star Mitra Mandal\n50,00,000\nSri Sringeri Peetham Charitable Trust

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 of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

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 of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

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 of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

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 of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

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 of Rs.79,87,930/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of 26 residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

45 as income of the\nprevious year in which the period of three years\nfrom the date of the transfer of the original asset\nexpires; and\n(ii)\nthe assessee shall be entitled to withdraw the\nunutilised amount in accordance with the scheme\naforesaid.\nExplanation. -72[Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992, w.e.f. 1-4-1993. ]]\n5. 1. Sub-section

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

45 of that Act, of any asset by the\nbanking company to the banking institution.\n(2)Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect\ncannot be given to any allowance under sub-section (1) in\nany previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains\nchargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits or\ngains

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

45 of that Act, of any asset by the\nbanking company to the banking institution.\n(2)Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect\ncannot be given to any allowance under sub-section (1) in\nany previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains\nchargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits or\ngains

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2) Grounds 5 to 7: Disallowance of Rs.21,08,45,001 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3) Grounds

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