OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 135(5) of the Act read with Section 80G

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 135(5) of the Act read with Section 80G

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed the same while computing the business income, but since there is no bar or restriction on deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim such contribution as deduction under section 80G of the Act. Page 2

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowed the same while computing the business income, but since there is no bar or restriction on deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim such contribution as deduction under section 80G of the Act. Page 2

POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section 135(5) of the Act read with Section 80G

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

80G towards CSR expenditure, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), and addition towards Form 26AS mismatch. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A., referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

2) Ast, 2014 without appreciating the fact that the explanation in the said memorandum relates to disallowance of expenditure claimed under Section 37 of the Act and by no stretch of the imagination can be extended to the deduction claimed under Section 80G

HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.302/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Hsbc Electronic Data Processing Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aaach8235M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowing deduction under section 80G of the Act. Apart from this, learned Assessing Officer did not grant refund of excess Dividend Distribution Taxes (DDT). Precisely these 4 additions are the subject matter in these 2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MADHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.302/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Hsbc Electronic Data Processing Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aaach8235M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowing deduction under section 80G of the Act. Apart from this, learned Assessing Officer did not grant refund of excess Dividend Distribution Taxes (DDT). Precisely these 4 additions are the subject matter in these 2

ZAHEER AHMED SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CC-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

2 of assessee's appeal is disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 80G of the Act, for Rs. 10,00,000/- towards

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

80G of the Act, which is a distinct and independent provision. They do not lay down any proposition that CSR expenditure is allowable under section 37(1) in view of the statutory prohibition contained in Explanation 2. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing

ANDHRA PRADESH BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

80G", "Section 234B", "Section 234C"], "issues": "1. Validity of assessment order in light of multiple DINs and bar of limitation. 2. Applicability of Section 40(a)(iib) to the amounts paid/appropriated towards privilege fee, special privilege fee, additional privilege fee, and contribution to CM Relief Fund. 3. Disallowance

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

80G and\n80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent\nof Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of\nRs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and\nmade the addition accordingly and assessed the total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

80G and\n80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent\nof Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of\nRs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and\nmade the addition accordingly and assessed the total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

80G and\n80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent\nof Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of\nRs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and\nmade the addition accordingly and assessed the total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

80G and\n80GGB], the deduction u/sec.80IA is allowable to the extent\nof Rs.43,04,93,491/- only and the balance amount of\nRs.5,58,33,404/- is disallowed u/sec.80IA of the Act and\nmade the addition accordingly and assessed the total\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

2 and 2.1 above, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while computing the interest on the outstanding receivables which was in foreign currency, the Ld. TPO/AO erred in : (i) Applying SBI Term deposit rates instead of the rates prevalent in the international market for foreign currency loans. (i.e., at USD LIBOR plus

NATCO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

2. The Id. AO/DRP failed to appreciate the alternate submission of the Appellant, and erred in holding that the provisions of section 35(2AB) of the Act, does not admit partial deduction. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the alternate claim has been raised under section 37(1) of the Act, and that the provisions of section