DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

14A of the Act. Thus, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3.1 With regard to the above additions, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated vide notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dt.27.03.2014. As there was no reply to the penalty notice from the assessee, Assessing Officer satisfied that the assessee

NAGAIAH KEKKIRENI,SURYAPET vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) is not passed within time. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2009-10 on 02/01/2014, declaring an income of Rs. 4,48,780/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under section

BHASKAR TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 14A." In view of above explanation, Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 9,69,174/- u/s. 14A of the Ac, without appreciating the fact and explanation submitted. :- 5 -: M/s. Bhaskar Transport Private Limited B. It was further argued that the Assessing Officer further erred by initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271

BHASKAR TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 14A." In view of above explanation, Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 9,69,174/- u/s. 14A of the Ac, without appreciating the fact and explanation submitted. :- 5 -: M/s. Bhaskar Transport Private Limited B. It was further argued that the Assessing Officer further erred by initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271

BHASKAR TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 14A." In view of above explanation, Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 9,69,174/- u/s. 14A of the Ac, without appreciating the fact and explanation submitted. :- 5 -: M/s. Bhaskar Transport Private Limited B. It was further argued that the Assessing Officer further erred by initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) r.w.s 274, 271AA & 271BA of the Income Tax Act. 10. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature, hence, need no adjudication. 11. Ground No. 3 is against the rejection of TP documentation by the TPO. The assessee did not seriously contest this ground and, therefore, the same is not adjudicated. 12. Ground

GSS INFOTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) r.w.s 274, 271AA & 271BA of the Income Tax Act. 10. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature, hence, need no adjudication. 11. Ground No. 3 is against the rejection of TP documentation by the TPO. The assessee did not seriously contest this ground and, therefore, the same is not adjudicated. 12. Ground

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

section 14A of the Act and disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 5,00,40,155/- by applying the method laid down under Rule 8D. 3. The CIT(A) erred in failing to direct AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 21,45,79,886/- claimed u/s. 10B of the Act in respect of Export Oriented Undertaking (hereinafter referred

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

section 14A of the Act and disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 5,00,40,155/- by applying the method laid down under Rule 8D. 3. The CIT(A) erred in failing to direct AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 21,45,79,886/- claimed u/s. 10B of the Act in respect of Export Oriented Undertaking (hereinafter referred

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

Bench: Us:

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. Apart from that the assessee company has filed before us letters dated 14.07.2023, 21.09.2023 and 22.04.2025, wherein it has raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under: Filed on 14.07.2023: “1. On the facts and circumstances

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) for disallowing interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 29,15,240/- without appreciating the fact that thee assessee has not incurred any expenditure which is directly attributable towards investments in mutual funds. 6. The ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act be deleted. 4· On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of taxability of dividend income as "income from other sources" on the alleged ground that ~ the dividend income was made taxable in the order passed u/s

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES.,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S.Mylan Laboratories Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Matrix Tax, Circle 16(2) Laboratories Ltd) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcm3491M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Mylan Laboratories Ltd Income Tax, Circle (Formerly Matrix Laboratories Ltd) 16(2), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcm3491M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35(1) in respect of the expenditure claimed towards scientific research. For coming to this conclusion, the CIT (A) followed the ITAT’s orders in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2008-09. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S.Mylan Laboratories Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Matrix Tax, Circle 16(2) Laboratories Ltd) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcm3491M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Mylan Laboratories Ltd Income Tax, Circle (Formerly Matrix Laboratories Ltd) 16(2), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcm3491M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35(1) in respect of the expenditure claimed towards scientific research. For coming to this conclusion, the CIT (A) followed the ITAT’s orders in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2008-09. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through she has deleted the above addition. 7) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not cancelling the penalty proceedings ix] s 271 (1 )( c) initiated by the Assessing Officer, when the appel1ant has neither concealed any particulars of income nor resorted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through she has deleted the above addition. 7) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not cancelling the penalty proceedings ix] s 271 (1 )( c) initiated by the Assessing Officer, when the appel1ant has neither concealed any particulars of income nor resorted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 are initiated for concealment of income. (Addition: Rs.62,20,540/-) 11. So far as the Nandanavanam Project (R.K. Site) is concerned, learned Assessing Officer noted that the assessee admitted the sale receipts in the return of income in respect of Nandanavanam Project for the assessment year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 are initiated for concealment of income. (Addition: Rs.62,20,540/-) 11. So far as the Nandanavanam Project (R.K. Site) is concerned, learned Assessing Officer noted that the assessee admitted the sale receipts in the return of income in respect of Nandanavanam Project for the assessment year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 are initiated for concealment of income. (Addition: Rs.62,20,540/-) 11. So far as the Nandanavanam Project (R.K. Site) is concerned, learned Assessing Officer noted that the assessee admitted the sale receipts in the return of income in respect of Nandanavanam Project for the assessment year