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. 20. To sum up, out of the disallowance of Rs. 13,02,340/-, the assessee gets relief of Rs. 45,086/-, and the balance addition of Rs. 12,57,454/- is upheld. 21. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.280/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed. ITA No.281/Hyd/2025

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 Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63

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 Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63

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 Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63

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 Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63

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 Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee under the head ‘trade discounts' and 'seed purchases' to the tune of Rs. 18,31,21,070/- and addition towards advances under Section 68 of the Act for Rs. 1,99,60,299/- and addition towards cessation of liabilities under Section

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

63,360/-. The case has been subsequently taken-up for revision proceedings and 3 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 accordingly, a show cause notice u/sec.263 of the Act dated 18.02.2025 was issued to the assessee and called-upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer shall not be revised for the reasons stated

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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & 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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & 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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & 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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & 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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & 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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & 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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & 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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & 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

63. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of depreciation by observing as under,- “8.1 I have considered the contentions of the AO and the AR. It is not in dispute that the AO has simply stated in the assessment order that bills in respect of assets of Rs.15,88,21,325/- were not furnished & disallowed

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

63 ITA.Nos.663 & 708/Hyd./2022 of interest expenditure, the appellant company does not provide relevant evidence to prove availability of own funds. In absence of relevant details, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) are rightly considered the investments made by the appellant company and consequent borrowings and interest paid on loans, to disallow expenditure under section