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

3), it is also applicable even if no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee. On the issue of whether in the absence of exempt income earned/claimed during the concerned year, disallowance could be made under section 14A, the departmental SLP against the order of High Court in IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

45,69,790/-. The case of the\nassessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer\n(\"Ld. AO”) on 09.08.2018. Thereafter, the Ld. AO completed the assessment\nunder Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2019, making a disallowance

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

3), it is also applicable even if no expenditure has\nbeen incurred by the assessee. On the issue of whether in the\nab sence of exempt income earned/claimed during the concerned\nyear, disallowance could be made under section 14A, the\ndepartmental SLP against the order of High Court in IL&FS Energy\nDevelopment Company Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi

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

45,42,960/- and the Ld. AO also completed the final assessment order by taking income as computed by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee had raised objection against the ITA No.912/Hyd/2024 8 addition made by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act before the Ld. DRP. However, the Ld. DRP rejected the claim

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

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses

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

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs.5,01,47,232/- by making additions towards disallowance of finance charges and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their order dated 18.09.2020 had confirmed the addition made towards disallowance of finance

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs.5,01,47,232/- by making additions towards disallowance of finance charges and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their order dated 18.09.2020 had confirmed the addition made towards disallowance of finance

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs.5,01,47,232/- by making additions towards disallowance of finance charges and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their order dated 18.09.2020 had confirmed the addition made towards disallowance of finance

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs.5,01,47,232/- by making additions towards disallowance of finance charges and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their order dated 18.09.2020 had confirmed the addition made towards disallowance of finance

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs.5,01,47,232/- by making additions towards disallowance of finance charges and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 42. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their order dated 18.09.2020 had confirmed the addition made towards disallowance of finance

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 372 of the Constitution respectively. It has been held by the Supreme Court that there is no material difference between "an existing law" and a "a law in force". It has been further observed that the words "a law in force" a used in Article 372 are wide enough

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 372 of the Constitution respectively. It has been held by the Supreme Court that there is no material difference between "an existing law" and a "a law in force". It has been further observed that the words "a law in force" a used in Article 372 are wide enough

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

ASHA NIMMAGADDA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 45(3) of the Act speak of a partnership firm or an AOP, not being a company or co-operative society and considering this exception, the assessee converted her 98.17% owned company into 99.83% owned LLP just to take advantage of this contribution of capital and thereby evade tax liability arising on the transfer of MAA TV shares