ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

dividends referred to in section 115-0. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, where any interest or other sum as aforesaid is credited to any account, whether called "Interest payable account" or "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed

KRISHNA HARI GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.668/Hyd/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Krishna Hari Gaddam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(1), [Pan No. Adepg7798Q] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02/11/2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Salaried Employee Of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Fled His Return Of Income, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 86,10,680/- & Paid Total Income Tax Of Rs. 27,37,674/-, Consisting Of Tax Deducted At Source (“Tds”) Of Rs. 15,11,384/- & Self Assessment Tax Of Rs.12,26,290/-. The Cpc Bengluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Dt. 08/05/2021 Did Not Give Credit Of Rs. 13,50,000/- Out Of Total Tds Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Deducted By M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Limited U/S. 192 Of The Act, Contending That Form 26As Does Contains The Details Of Tds Of Rs. 13,50,000/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.14,17,500/-.

TDS credit to the assessee, however there is no fault on the-part of the assessee. On a careful consideration of the facts of the present case, we find that the issue in this appeal is similar to the issue decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Harshdip Singh Dhillon vs. Union of India (supra

MADHU KUMAR PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT,(INT. TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

dividend was not assessable during the assessment year 1958-59 but it was assessable in the assessment year 1953-54. It cannot, therefore, be taxed in the assessment year 1958-59. 17. The various other decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the assessee also support the arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the same amount

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

deemed to be erroneous in So far it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue as per clause(a) and (c) of Expl. 2 to Sec.263 of the I.T Act, 1961. The same is therefore, set aside in terms of the provisions of section 263 of the I.T Act, 1961 and the assessing officer is directed to examine the above

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:

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice.” 3. Ground nos.(i) to (v) are regarding validity of the assessment order passed u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 as the Assessing Officer has breached the jurisdiction by expanding the scope of scrutiny from limited scrutiny under Computer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

dividend is exempt in nature. The total investments as on 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2013 stood at Rs. 185.47 crores and there is no other major activity of the company. During the course of hearing the AR stated that the appellant has no objection to the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of Rs. 14,00,000/-. In view of the above

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

deemed international transaction and the Hon'ble DRP erred in holding this transaction as an international transaction. B. Provision of Information Technology enabled Services ('ITeS') 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. TPO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action

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

deemed international transaction and the Hon'ble DRP erred in holding this transaction as an international transaction. B. Provision of Information Technology enabled Services ('ITeS') 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in contrary to law, the Ld. TPO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding/confirming the action

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

Dividend paid/ distributed over and above the rate provided in the DTAA, then such excess tax ought to refunded to is the Appellant. Appellant craves leave to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

ANDHRA CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS on Rs.6,35,421/- on the interest paid to L & T u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, in total, the Assessing Officer had disallowed Rs.34,83,213/- and thereby assessed the total income at Rs.7,43,34,983/-. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS ') amounting to Rs. 3,01,408 attributable to Infor (Bangalore) Private Limited and Rs. 3,49,350 attributable to Approva Systems Private Limited ('transferor companies') which were amalgamated with Appellant with effect from 01 April 2015. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in not granting credit

VICTORY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Victory Electricals Ltd., V Dcit,Circle-17(2) Plot No.8, Survey No.855, S. Signature Towers Ida, Medchal, Kondapur Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad Hyderabad-501 401

TDS is to be effected amounted to Rs.65,65,157/_ and whereas the appellant disallowed only Rs.37,9 1,602/ ". The balance is disallowed by the Assessing Officer now. In this regard, the appellant submits that to the extent the amount was paid no disallowance can be made and, therefore,. the appellant disallowed only Rs.37

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

dividend by private companies are subject to tax in the hands of shareholders and hence section14A should not be invoked as income is not exempt from tax and forms part of total income. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in disallowing the depreciation claimed on life fitness use XB of Rs.48

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1)), HYDERABAD ,, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

dividend by private companies are subject to tax in the hands of shareholders and hence section14A should not be invoked as income is not exempt from tax and forms part of total income. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in disallowing the depreciation claimed on life fitness use XB of Rs.48

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1)), HYDERABAD ,, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

dividend by private companies are subject to tax in the hands of shareholders and hence section14A should not be invoked as income is not exempt from tax and forms part of total income. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in disallowing the depreciation claimed on life fitness use XB of Rs.48

BBR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS from such payments. When the assessee was asked to explain, the assessee merely furnished Form 26A. Observing that the assessee has failed to provide any confirmation/certificate from the financial institutions to the effect that they have offered the interest income to tax in their returns of income for the relevant A.Y, the Assessing Officer applied the provisions of section

SURYAJYOTI INFOTECH LTD., SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO,WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Suryajyoti Infotech Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Secunderabad. – 3(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecs6875J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs. Suryajyothi Infotech 3(4), Hyderabad. Limited, Secunderabad. Pan – Aaecs6875J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri V. Siva Kumar Smt N. Swapna Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 05-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2018 Order Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: Both Are Cross Appeals For The A.Y 2011-12, Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Hyderabad Dated 05.08.2015. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Development & Maintenance Of Computer Software, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y Suryajyothi Infotech Ltd., Secunderabad. 2011-12 On 29.09.2011, Admitting A Total Income Of Rs. 1,01,412/- After Claiming An Exemption Of Rs. 77,99,926/- U/S 10A Of The It Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, The Assessee Was Required To File Certain Details. After Verifying The Books Of Accounts & The Information Filed By The Assessee, The A.O Proposed To Make:

dividend income during the relevant assessment year. Thus, grounds of appeal of the Suryajyothi Infotech Ltd., Secunderabad. Revenue are rejected and the assessee’s ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed. 8. As regards grounds of appeal No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal, we find that it is against the disallowance of the balance of the interest expenditure which

ITO, WARD-3(4), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SURYAJYOTI INFOTECH LTD, SEC'BAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Suryajyoti Infotech Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Secunderabad. – 3(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecs6875J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs. Suryajyothi Infotech 3(4), Hyderabad. Limited, Secunderabad. Pan – Aaecs6875J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri V. Siva Kumar Smt N. Swapna Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 05-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2018 Order Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: Both Are Cross Appeals For The A.Y 2011-12, Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Hyderabad Dated 05.08.2015. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Development & Maintenance Of Computer Software, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y Suryajyothi Infotech Ltd., Secunderabad. 2011-12 On 29.09.2011, Admitting A Total Income Of Rs. 1,01,412/- After Claiming An Exemption Of Rs. 77,99,926/- U/S 10A Of The It Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, The Assessee Was Required To File Certain Details. After Verifying The Books Of Accounts & The Information Filed By The Assessee, The A.O Proposed To Make:

dividend income during the relevant assessment year. Thus, grounds of appeal of the Suryajyothi Infotech Ltd., Secunderabad. Revenue are rejected and the assessee’s ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed. 8. As regards grounds of appeal No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal, we find that it is against the disallowance of the balance of the interest expenditure which