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

50,000/- was received though a single cheque from the said company and thus did not involve any expenditure. We also submit that we are advised for making investments in mutual funds by investment adviser MRs Sajja Divija and for services we have paid Rs.2,40,000/-. During the Asst. Year we had disallowed Rs.12,17,882/- on account

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

50,000/- was received though a single cheque\nfrom the said company and thus did not involve any expenditure. We also submit that\nwe are advised for making investments in mutual funds by investment adviser MRs\nSajja Divija and for services we have paid Rs.2,40,000/-. During the Asst. Year we\nhad disallowed Rs.12,17,882/- on account

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)

50,000/- and the same has been deposited into the Government account. In respect of interest on TDS, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, it is not an item to be disallowed 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)

50,000/- and the same has been deposited into the Government account. In respect of interest on TDS, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, it is not an item to be disallowed 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)

50,000/- and the same has been deposited into the Government account. In respect of interest on TDS, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, it is not an item to be disallowed under Section

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of Rs.1,03,44,404/- towards interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act; and (ii) Disallowance

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of Rs.1,03,44,404/- towards interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act; and (ii) Disallowance

MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of Rs.1,03,44,404/- towards interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act; and (ii) Disallowance

MSN ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of Rs.1,03,44,404/- towards interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act; and (ii) Disallowance

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

50%) of the aggregate of the sums\nspecified in sub-section 2 [refer sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of\nSub-section 2 of section 80G of the Act read with section 80G\n(1) (ii)] which allows the donation given to any other Fund or any\ninstitution to which this section applies and if it satisfies the\nrequirement

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

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

50,905/- was paid as interest on borrowed funds, whereas during the year though the assessee borrowed a sum of Rs. 21.55 crores, no amount was advanced and, therefore, no portion of such borrowed fund was used for the business of the assessee and accordingly, entire interest expenses attributable to such loan has to be disallowed. Learned Assessing Officer accordingly

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

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

50,905/- was paid as interest on borrowed funds, whereas during the year though the assessee borrowed a sum of Rs. 21.55 crores, no amount was advanced and, therefore, no portion of such borrowed fund was used for the business of the assessee and accordingly, entire interest expenses attributable to such loan has to be disallowed. Learned Assessing Officer accordingly

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

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

50,905/- was paid as interest on borrowed funds, whereas during the year though the assessee borrowed a sum of Rs. 21.55 crores, no amount was advanced and, therefore, no portion of such borrowed fund was used for the business of the assessee and accordingly, entire interest expenses attributable to such loan has to be disallowed. Learned Assessing Officer accordingly

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 46. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

ANANDA PRASAD VENIGALA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1384/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Ananda Prasad Venigala, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aewpp1096B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ananda Prasad Venigala (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 18.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of Rs.14,80,526/- and (b) addition under Section 68 of the Act of Rs.1,05,50