In the case of Govats Foundation v ITO (Exemption) it is held by ITAT-Hyderabad that the approval u/s 80G(5) could be granted to charitable institution if the certificate granted u/s 12A has not been withdrawn.
In the case of Bhavya Anant Udeshi Vs ITO (International Taxation) it was held by ITAT Hyderabad that provision of section 50C being a deeming provision, it cannot be used for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) unless it is proved that Assessee has received any amount over
DDIT (Ex) Vs. Gideons International In India (ITAT HYDERABAD) The assessee in this case is a registered society who paid salary to its director along with some perks in addition to the basic salary. AO doubted that excessive salary has been paid to the director and he made addition of excessive salary than the salary mentioned in the appointment letter.
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of VITP Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT that as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 18C of Income Tax Rules, it is clear that on approval by the central govt., CBDT is only required to notify the industrial park for benefit u/s 80IA (4)(iii).
The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Sri Surakshitha Homes vs. ITO held that where the AO has assessed income on estimation basis then CIT cannot order to revise the assessment by picking and choosing some aspects of estimation to be re-verified.
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that the appellant failed to produce proof in support of dispatch of Form 15H to the CIT, this by itself does not entail any addition. It was only technical breach of law and the act provides for separate penal provisions for such default.
The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad vs. DCIT held that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing deduction claimed on account of write off of bad and doubtful debts relating to non-rural/urban advances.
In this case AO made certain addition being disagreed from the submissions of the assessee. Being aggrieved from the assessment order assessee filed appeal before CIT (A). After considering submissions of the assessee and noticing that the provisions of Section 14A has to be invoked
In the case of Smt. Uppala Rajani Vs. DCIT Hyderabad Bench of ITAT have held that the amount advanced for business transaction between parties regarding supply of material and labour, are not such to fall within the definition of ‘deemed dividend’ under S.2(22)(e).
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of M/s. OSI Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that it may be a fact that software development services is a very wide term and takes within its ambit, whole software development services.
