आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदè य के सम¢ ।

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलस.ं /I.T.A. No.1781 & 1782/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Income Tax, Limited, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad.

Hyderabad. PAN: AAACU2690P (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate करदाताका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Assessee Represented by : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR राजèवका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Department Represented by : 04/03/2026 सुनवाईसमाÜतहोनेक(cid:551)(cid:467)त(cid:876)थ/

Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 13/03/2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/

Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:

The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the different orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 01/08/2025 & dated 07/08/2025 for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018- 19 respectively. Since both the appeals are related to the same assessee, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of brevity.

ITA NO. 1781/HYD/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 :

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had duly recorded his satisfaction, as mandated by Section 14A(2), regarding the incorrectness of the assessee computation of disallowable expenditure in relation to exempt income.

2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that only those investments which actually yielded exempt income during the year are to be considered for Rule 8D computation, contrary to the express language of Section 14A, Rule 8D, and CBDT Circular 5/2014, which do not require actual receipt of exempt income as a precondition for disallowance.

3. The CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee claim that investments were made exclusively from surplus own funds, without considering that the assessee also had interest-bearing borrowed funds and both sets of funds formed a common pool. In the absence of a clear and direct nexus between interest-free funds and investments, the possibility that borrowed funds may have been used cannot be ruled out.

4. The CIT(A) erred in excluding growth-oriented mutual funds from the ambit of Section 14A/Rule 8D merely because they did not yield exempt income during the year, even though such investments are inherently capable of producing exempt income (dividends), thus attracting the provisions of Section

14A.

5. The order of the CIT(A) is contrary to the express provisions of law, the legislative intent of Section 14A, applicable CBDT Circulars, and established judicial precedents. The order of the Assessing Officer may therefore be restored in the interests of justice.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any ground(s)

of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of publishing and sale of newspapers, manufacture and sale of food products, generation and sale of wind/solar power and conducting events such as educational and business fairs, etc. The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017–18 on 31.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.234,49,73,300/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 01.03.2019, declaring total income of Rs.221,45,69,790/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued by the Lea