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)

96,350/- shown in the Audited Profit & Loss Account is the final net profit actually arrived by the assessee company for A.Y. 2017-18. Further, the A.O. had also made 30% disallowance of the said difference of Rs. 90,00,000/- under Section

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

96,250/-. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on 12.03.2021. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee filed its reply on 12.01.2022, enclosing copies of the books

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. BHAGYANAGAR INDIA LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1200/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Income Tax Officer, M/S. Bhagyanagar India Ward-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan:Aaacb8963C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 16.05.2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 14A of the Act. These disallowances led to an addition of Rs.81,96,987/- to the gross total income

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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has 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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has 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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has 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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has 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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has 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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has 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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has 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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has 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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act observed that,- “6.2 Ground No.3 Is regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.43,96, 23,203/-. The AO has disallowed

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. KESAVA KUMAR KUNAPUREDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

96,000/-. The A.O. disallowed the entire amount of investment claimed by the assessee under Section 54F of the Act for Rs. 7,33,96

PALLAVI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Pallavi Constructions Vs. Acit Hyderabad Circle 14(1) Pan:Aacfp1600M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.2.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-6, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Properties/Construction. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,16,40,200/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed From The Details Furnished By The Assessee That It Has Claimed An Amount Of Rs.2,72,36,046/- Towards “Bank Interest & Charges”. On Being Asked By The Assessing Officer To Submit The Page 1 Of 8

disallowed the interest to the tune of Rs.1,40,96,519/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Before

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

Bench: Us:

section 80JJAA of the Act. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. Panel erred in disallowing expenditure of INR 66,96

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section for Rs.14,59,30,268 in the order u/s 143(3) dated 9.12.2016, therefore, he disallowed the additional deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of Rs.12,51,98,995/-. 8. The Assessing Officer similarly noted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c) w.r.t to irrigation projects for Rs.7,51,96

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section for Rs.14,59,30,268 in the order u/s 143(3) dated 9.12.2016, therefore, he disallowed the additional deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of Rs.12,51,98,995/-. 8. The Assessing Officer similarly noted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c) w.r.t to irrigation projects for Rs.7,51,96

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section for Rs.14,59,30,268 in the order u/s 143(3) dated 9.12.2016, therefore, he disallowed the additional deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of Rs.12,51,98,995/-. 8. The Assessing Officer similarly noted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c) w.r.t to irrigation projects for Rs.7,51,96