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

5)(vi) of the Act in respect of Pt.\nJashraj Music Academy Trust is found placed at page 19 of PB\ndated 30-3-2012 given by Director of Income-tax (Exemption).\nTherefore, since the assessee satisfies the condition u/s. 80G of\nthe Act of the donees, the assessee's claim for deduction of\nCSR expenses/contribution u/s 80G

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

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

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

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

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