DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance made by the ld.CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the issue is required to be send back to the file of the Assessing Officer by issuing the similar direction as we have done in the case of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) in ITA Nos.1722 to 1726/Hyd/2022 wherein it was held as under

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance made by the ld.CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the issue is required to be send back to the file of the Assessing Officer by issuing the similar direction as we have done in the case of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) in ITA Nos.1722 to 1726/Hyd/2022 wherein it was held as under

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

46,62,900/-\nmonthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the\nvalue of investment, income from which does not or shall not form Less: Already\npart of the total income.\ndisallowance shown.\nRs.12,17,882/-\nDisallowance under section 14A of the Act\nRs.3,34,45,018/-\n4.1 In order to examine the contentions of the assessee-company

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

46,62,900/-\nLess: Already\ndisallowance shown.\nRs.12,17,882/-\nDisallowance under Section 14A of the Act\nRs.3,34,45,018/-\n4.1 In order to examine the contentions of the assessee-company, it is necessary to refer\nto the relevant provisions of Section 14A of the Act which was introduced by the Finance Act,\n2001 with retrospective effect from

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 made u/s.40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.44,24,840/- 4. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 44. Coming back to Assessment Year 2019-20, the first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is addition

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 made u/s.40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.44,24,840/- 4. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 44. Coming back to Assessment Year 2019-20, the first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is addition

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 made u/s.40(a)(ia) of an amount of Rs.44,24,840/- 4. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 44. Coming back to Assessment Year 2019-20, the first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is addition

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

section 80G of the Act in respect of such donations which\nformed part of the spend towards CSR. Respectfully following the\njurisdictional tribunal, ground no 3 is allowed.\n5. Ground No.4 was raised against the disallowance of deduction u/s\n80IA amounting to Rs.24,35,05,411/-. The company is engaged in the\nbusiness of manufacturing of cement and generation

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

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

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 20 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income that is earned during the year under consideration, it is in consonance with the settled principles of law. We, therefore, while accepting the contention of the assessee, direct the learned Assessing Officer to recompute

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

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

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 20 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income that is earned during the year under consideration, it is in consonance with the settled principles of law. We, therefore, while accepting the contention of the assessee, direct the learned Assessing Officer to recompute

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

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

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules shall not exceed the exempt Page 20 of 22 ITA No. 385 & 386/Hyd/2015 income that is earned during the year under consideration, it is in consonance with the settled principles of law. We, therefore, while accepting the contention of the assessee, direct the learned Assessing Officer to recompute

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

disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,63,82,272/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46

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

disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,63,82,272/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46

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

disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,63,82,272/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46

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

disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,63,82,272/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46

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

disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,63,82,272/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 46

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance of penalty paid to RBI for violation of section 46(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for deviation

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 of Rs.75,59,818/- made under Section 14A of the Act is directed to be deleted and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. 13. As far as the deletion of Rs.2,22,94,090/- is concerned, we have gone through para no.46A of AS-11 which is to the following effect : “ 46A. (1) In respect

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

46,018/- and has not made any suo motu disallowance of expenditure relatable to exempt 17 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued specific notice under section