ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

80G w.r.t CSR donations: Rs. 1,88,97,644/-; (iii) disallowance of\nthe claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of\nthe Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect\nof alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs.\n1,29,91,000/-, determined he income

INDISHINE FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.880/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2023-24) M/S. Indishine Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. (Exemption), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aagci9967D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.N. Nishanth Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Indishine Foundation (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 19.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

68 to 77 and 90 to 95 of the paper book. However, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application under Section 80G of the Act dated 19.03.2025 is devoid of any discussion on the submissions made by the assessee and does not record any specific deficiency, contradiction, or violation of Section 80G conditions. Such

HYDERABAD AREA ROUND TABLE NO 134 CHARITABLE TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.62 & 68/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: N.A) Hyderabad Area Round Vs. Commissioner Of Income Table No 134 Charitable Tax ( Exemption ) Trust, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabth5683D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Sridhar Jhawar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order

80G(5) and section 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 respectively. 2. In the appeal against the rejection of application u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 6 ITA Nos 62 and 68

HYDERABAD AREA ROUND TABLE NO 134 CHARTIABLE TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.62 & 68/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: N.A) Hyderabad Area Round Vs. Commissioner Of Income Table No 134 Charitable Tax ( Exemption ) Trust, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabth5683D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Sridhar Jhawar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order

80G(5) and section 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 respectively. 2. In the appeal against the rejection of application u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 6 ITA Nos 62 and 68

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

80G\nwith respect to amount remitted towards CMRP out of\nsale proceeds by APBCL as claimed by it in its return of\nincome does not arise.\n19.\nKind attention is drawn to sample copy of\nsale invoice of retailer provided at page 16/paper book\nvol 1. Sale invoice shows that even post amendment of\nregulation of wholesale trade

M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,35,848/- by making disallowance towards depreciation on pollution control equipment of Rs. 14,54,327/- and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/-. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising the issues of i) action of AO in initiating reassessment proceedings, ii) disallowance of depreciation and iii) disallowance

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,35,848/- by making disallowance towards depreciation on pollution control equipment of Rs. 14,54,327/- and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/-. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising the issues of i) action of AO in initiating reassessment proceedings, ii) disallowance of depreciation and iii) disallowance

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

80G of the Act in respect of eligible donations/ payments made by Appellant for the year under consideration based on the assessed Gross Total Income. 6.1. Without prejudice to Grounds 4 & 5 above, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble DRP erred in holding that the donations/payments made by Appellant were

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 115P of the Act amounting to Rs. 16,88,87,040/-. 27.1 The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the entire DDT was paid within the due date and denies the interest liability u/s 115P. He submitted that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80G, but the AO denied granting of deduction u/s80G

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 115P of the Act amounting to Rs. 16,88,87,040/-. 27.1 The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the entire DDT was paid within the due date and denies the interest liability u/s 115P. He submitted that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80G, but the AO denied granting of deduction u/s80G

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

68,10,083/- as against the returned income of the assessee company at Rs.429,85,54,380/- vide order dated 26.09.2023 passed u/sec.144C(1) of the Act by allowing 30 days time prescribed under the Act from the date of receipt of the order either to file objections before the DRP or to accept the additions made by the Assessing

P.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Conference)

68 of the act which is invalid since bank statement cannot be elevated into to the status of regular books of accounts as per meaning in the sec 2(12A) r.w.s 44AA of the IT Act, 1961. 20. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal raised on merits of the case

P.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Conference)

68 of the act which is invalid since bank statement cannot be elevated into to the status of regular books of accounts as per meaning in the sec 2(12A) r.w.s 44AA of the IT Act, 1961. 20. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal raised on merits of the case

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

80G\nwith respect to amount remitted towards CMRP out of\nsale proceeds by APBCL as claimed by it in its return of\nincome does not arise.\n\n19.\nKind attention is drawn to sample copy of\nsale invoice of retailer provided at page 16/paper book\nvol 1. Sale invoice shows that even post amendment of\nregulation of wholesale trade

RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss on sale of assets of Rs. 4,74,93,277/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the loss accrued on sale of asset is revenue in nature and hence an allowable expenditure