SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

section 54, therefore, erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The Learned

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

Section 54 of\nthe Act. He, accordingly, computed the long term capital gain, after\ngranting benefit of indexation on cost of acquisition and cost of\nimprovement, at Rs.45,36,273/-. While examining the question of capital\ngains, the Assessing Officer also disallowed

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with rule 8D is bad in law, as the Learned Assessing Officer failed to record his dissatisfaction with regard to the correctness of the appellant's claim, as required under Section 14A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 3 ITA.No.113/Hyd./2025 4. After hearing both the sides

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. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 54. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the A.O. has passed the order giving effect to the order

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. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 54. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the A.O. has passed the order giving effect to the order

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. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 54. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the A.O. has passed the order giving effect to the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowed the claim made by the assessee u/s 54 of the Act. Being aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who granted partial relief to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds : “1. That the ld.CIT(A)’s action in allowing the appeal

KAUSALYA AGRO FARMS AMD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 10.4 As far as the other investments which are not covered in terms of commercial expediency, the assessee in his alternate plea has submitted that, the total impugned investment made by the assessee was Rs.12,72,54

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA amounting to Rs.24,35,05,411/-. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement and generation of power. Power generated is being used for manufacturing cement and the profits earned from Power Divisions are claimed as deduction U/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company has power generation units established

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA amounting to Rs.24,35,05,411/-. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement and generation of power. Power generated is being used for manufacturing cement and the profits earned from Power Divisions are claimed as deduction U/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company has power generation units established

SATYA PRAKASH REDDY AEDUDODLA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2010-11 Satya Prakash Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aedudodla, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Acppr 9805 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

disallowance b the AO of deduction U/s. 54 is on wrong appreciation of facts. 6. The appellant prays leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that there is a delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before

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

54,27,201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed

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

54,27,201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed

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

54,27,201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed

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

54,27,201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(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

54,27,201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed

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

54,27,201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed

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

54,27,201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed

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

54,27,201/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 25/03/2016 and the deduction claimed under section 80-lA of the Act was disallowed