FEDERATION OF AP COOPERATIVE URBAN BANKS AND CREDIT SOCIETIES LIMITED HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground that the assessee had not filed its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, as the extended due date for filing the return was 31.08.2019. Consequently, the CPC determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.36,70

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

70,000/-. The appellant company has claimed deduction under section 35(2AB) of Rs.398,36,53,820/-. The Assessing Officer 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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly, Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal is DISMISSED”. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 69. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side

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

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

70,959/- under normal\nprovisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]\nand book loss of Rs.306,42,31,817/- under Section 115JB\nof the Act. The case of the appellant company was selected\nfor scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, a Reference u/sec.92CA of the Act was made to\nthe Transfer Pricing Officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

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 in implementation of KYC- AML guidelines without appreciating the fact that the said payment is not penalty for committing an offence or prohibition of any law. The Ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that this view is squarely

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 37 of the Act towards CSR expenditure, Rs.2,07,247/- on account of disallowance towards prior period expenses and Rs.38 lakhs on account of non-reconciliation of income as per profit and ITA No.1747/Hyd/2019 14 loss account and form no.26AS. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,74,79,993/-. 6. Aggrieved with

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-2,HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 37 of the Act and therefore the same cannot be allowed. 9. On perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we find that towards the omission and deficiency of services NHAI passed a Circular debarring the assessee from participating in any work connected with NHAI for a period of one year and for such breach

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

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.749/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Caspian Impact Vs. Dy.Cit Investments Private Ltd, Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcs4132K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Mumbai (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Dated 27.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

70,443/- under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and Rs.11,28,99,449/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, on 26.03.2020, the assessee revised its return of income only to modify disclosure in Schedule BP of ITR pursuant to a proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, the income

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

Bench: Us:

disallowed with an assumption that the assessee had not deposited Rs. 70,00,000/- received on account of sale of house property in capital gains accounts scheme. 3. The Learned. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the requirement of the section