ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

business of development of infrastructure projects, and claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in the return of income filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, 1961. It is also an admitted fact that, the assessee has furnished the original return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 30.10.2019, which is on or before

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

business of development of infrastructure projects, and claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in the return of income filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, 1961. It is also an admitted fact that, the assessee has furnished the original return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 30.10.2019, which is on or before

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

income added u/s 41(1) of the Act relating to unclaimed liabilities to Rs.45,93,627/-. 8.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld.AR submitted that for any addition to be made u/s 41(1) of the Act, there should be entry in the books of accounts as cessation

SKANDHANSHI DEVELOPERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

business activity which required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission Agents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and not subjected to TDS

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

TDS) of Rs.20,57,372/-, whereas the corresponding income had not been offered in its return of income, but based on the directions of the Tribunal in its 11 Tirumala Estates, Hyderabad. orders for the A.Y. 2001–02 and subsequent years, the subject income had been disclosed by the respective partners in their individual hands and offered

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the deduction of tax at source (TDS) on payments made to contractors for carrying out work. This circular only provides guidance on whether TDS under Section 194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

business activity\nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission\nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and\nnot subjected to TDS

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1330/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Constructions The Income Tax Officer, Nirmal. Telangana. Ward-1, Vs. Pin – 504 106. Nirmal – 504 106. Pan Aapfk1280K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar,Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

income because of which refund results, then in our view, it will completely frustrate the very objective of "limited scrutiny". 9.9. We are of the considered opinion that when the tax authorities are scrutinizing/examining whether refund claimed is justified, they should confined themselves whether the gross receipts on which the TDS credit is sought has been declared in the return

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Income-tax Act, 1961,\nconcerning the deduction of tax at source (TDS) on payments made\nto contractors for carrying out work. This circular only provides\nguidance on whether TDS under Section 194C is applicable to\npayments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies\n(including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting)\nto advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Income-tax Act, 1961,\nconcerning the deduction of tax at source (TDS) on payments made\nto contractors for carrying out work. This circular only provides\nguidance on whether TDS under Section 194C is applicable to\npayments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies\n(including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting)\nto advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Income-tax Act, 1961,\nconcerning the deduction of tax at source (TDS) on payments made\nto contractors for carrying out work. This circular only provides\nguidance on whether TDS under Section 194C is applicable to\npayments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies\n(including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting)\nto advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies

ALPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

TDS) by treating the same as lease rental income. Further, it is also a fact that the lease rental had been shown by the assessee company under the head “Other income” in its profit and loss account for the year under consideration and had not formed part of its sales. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid facts

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

business activity \nwhich required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income \nTax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission \nAgents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and \nnot subjected to TDS

SRINIVAS UPPU,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not; or x x x” 15) On a perusal of the said provision, it is evident that it is a sine qua non that there should be an allowance or deduction claimed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMRUT PRASAD PATNAM , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not; or x x x” 15) On a perusal of the said provision, it is evident that it is a sine qua non that there should be an allowance or deduction claimed