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 the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of the Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs. 1,29,91,000/-, determined he income

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

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

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

iii) Computing interest on invoice-to-invoice basis without computing weighted average receivable in days for all the invoices raised during the year under consideration and after considering receivables received in advance and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding the said action of the Ld. TPO/AO 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

iii) whether separate adjustment for receivables is required once working capital adjustment has been allowed, iv) whether adjustment on account of receivables is not warranted unless profitability of comparable companies is higher after adjustments. The TPO after relying on 10 ITA.No.853/Hyd./2024 decisions of (1) Ameriprise India Pvt Ltd vs., ACIT 2015-TII- 347-ITAT-Delhi-TP (2) Techbooks

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

80G of the Act amounting to INR 10,43,860 and further erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, to present its case on merits, before denial of such deduction. 22. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by granting credit of tax deducted at source

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

80G of the Act amounting to INR 10,43,860 and further erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, to present its case on merits, before denial of such deduction. 22. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by granting credit of tax deducted at source