F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS certificates may be adjusted. 6. Disallowance of Exempt Income - If any income claimed as exempt does not meet the required

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

exemption in case the project is\ntransferred to any other entity for the purpose of operation\nand maintenance of the project. Therefore, we are of the\nconsidered view that once the Assessing Officer having\nsatisfied that all the projects developed by the assessee are\ninfrastructure projects and are eligible for deduction\nu/sec.80IA(4) of the Act, the Assessing Officer erred

DCIT., (INTERNATION TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA INTERNATIONAL B V, NETHERLAND

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

exempted from levy of interests u/s.234B & 234C in respect of the dividend income on which TDS has been made by the payee

SWARNA EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS and had filed return in Form Type 7 and has not claimed any deduction exemptions under section 11 or clauses

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

TDS, which attracts disallowance\nu/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore,\nconsidering the overall scenario including relevant books of\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n12\naccounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search observed that,\nthe profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during\nthe

FSL PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY FRONTLINE SOFT LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE14(3) (TDS), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

TDS) and without ensuring that an application under section 195(3) of the Act was filed by the recipient to obtain necessary exemption

FSL PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY FRONTLINE SOFT LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(3) (TDS), HYDERABAD

In the result, subject to the above observations, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

TDS) and without ensuring that an application under section 195(3) of the Act was filed by the recipient to obtain necessary exemption

HRITIK EXIM,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Hritik Exim Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1) C/O P.Murali & Co. 5Th Floor, It Towers Chartered Accountants Ac Guards 6-3-655/2/3 Hyderabad-500 004 Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082

exempt purchases and other purchases. So far as the difference in the interest income is concerned, it is the submission of the ld.counsel for the assessee that whatever interest was received after TDS

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS\nstatements/26AS.\n18. Details of other operating revenue of Rs.592151550 and non-operating income of\nRs.1794546/-.\n19. Details of forex income of Rs.60741789/-.\n20. Comparative statement of gross profit and net profit for the last three years.\nReasons for fall in profits, if any, may also be furnished.\n21. Detailed note on the deductions and exemptions

AMOL ANNASO TERADALE,PUNE vs. ITO,(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

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

TDS Schedule was higher than salary income shown, etc. Hence, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee by NFAC. In response, the assessee filed reply and submitted that his status was non-resident. The AO after examining the details furnished and the submissions made disallowed the claim of exemption

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS, disallowance is not justified. Accordingly, we allow the ground raised by the assessee.” 17. Thus, it is clear that a consistent view has been taken by the Tribunal on the point that when the payment is made as per the legally binding agreement between the parties, which is duly approved by the RBI for the purpose of remittance

BYRRAJU RAMALINGA RAJU (INDIVIDUAL),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2007-08 Shri Byrraju Ramalinga Vs. A.C.I.T Raju, Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Acvpb8311J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.2.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Visakhapatnam Relating To A.Y.2007-08. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.11,44,900/- Being Interest Income & Rs.1,80,862/- Being Agricultural Income Made By The Assessing Officer.

TDS was made 10.2% c) Thus the interest income received on Rs.88,20,745 the FDRs d) Interest income from savings bank Rs. 1,23,541 accounts e) Total interest income (c+d) Rs.89,44,286 f) Additional interest income now brought Rs.11,44,900 to taxation (e-f) 6. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs.1

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

exemption in case the project is\ntransferred to any other entity for the purpose of operation\nand maintenance of the project. Therefore, we are of the\nconsidered view that once the Assessing Officer having\nsatisfied that all the projects developed by the assessee are\ninfrastructure projects and are eligible for deduction\nu/sec.80IA(4) of the Act, the Assessing Officer erred

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

TDS?\nAccordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the\nDepartment Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the\nprovision for educational facilities is being made by assessee\nas a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage\nAgreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms\nof Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said\nprovision is also accepted

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

TDS?\nAccordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the\nDepartment Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the\nprovision for educational facilities is being made by assessee\nas a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage\nAgreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms\nof Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said\nprovision is also accepted