ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and

section(u/s) 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without proper verification of the relevant records and supporting documents. , 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of INR 25,85,800 made by the Ld.AO u/s 69 of the Act, by treating the cash deposits as unexplained, without duly appreciating the evidence furnished

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowing interest expenditure of INR 208,333 under section 37 of the Act disregarding the fact that the differential interest amount (market value of interest income vs interest charged from employee) was already taxed as perquisite in the hands of the Managing Director. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the LA. AO/LA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of computer software expenses by treating them as capital expenditure (Rs.19,24,31,255/); During the assessment proceedings it is observed that the assessee purchased certain software and claimed the expenditure as revenue. When questioned as to why the same should not be treated as capital expenditure, it was stated that the expenditure was incurred for running the business

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

801B & 80le needs to be disallowed'. Subsequently upon the request by the assessee, the A.O vide letter dated 30.10.2015 communicated his observations in respect of the assessment for the AY 2007-08 wherein it was mentioned that the corporate expenditure was not allocated to the units eligible ujs.8018 / 80lC and hence the excess claim of deduction needs to be disallowed

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

section 801B(10) to remove the hardship caused by strict implementation of the provisions instead of making incorrect interpretation of the circular. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have limited the deduction to the portions of the housing project completed by the appellant instead of making a literal interpretation of the provision and disallowing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. TKR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Tkr Educational Society, Of Income Tax, 16-2-751/A/31/Ctirumala (Exemptions), Hills, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana – 500036. Pan : Aaaat7850Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

801B instead of Sec. 10B, this being a technical mistake, should not come in the way by disallowing the otherwise allowable/eligible exemption. " Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has made it aptly clear that mere typographical error or error due to any technical glitch while filing return of income should not be reason to disallow the otherwise allowable/eligible exemption

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Giridhari Constructions, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagfg 5289D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Giridhari Constructions, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 14(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagfg 5289D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) - 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 24/09/2015 For Ay 2011-12

disallowance of deduction u/s. 801B in respect of 7 flats. 3. The Ld. ClT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction u/s. 80lB in respect of the impugned 7 flats also appreciating that these flats exceeded the limit of 1500 sft due to consideration 0f common areas. 4. The Ld. allowed the deduction u/s. 801B in respect of the impugned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of JP Arcadia of Rs. 1,93,43,017/- as well as JP Metropolis of Rs. 1,58,96,825/-, the AO observed that in the return of Income filed, the 11 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others assessee disclosed income arising out of business and profession at Rs.7

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1017/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Ocean Sparkle Ltd Circle 5 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco2519H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Saurabh Soparkar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/Order

disallowed in the earlier Page 4 of 31 ITA No 1017 of 2024 Ocean Sparkle Ltd A.Ys. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed the reply dated 02/12/2019 reproduced by the Assessing Officer in para 3.2 as under: 7. Thus, the assessee has reiterated its claim on the strength of the orders of this Tribunal