OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS short credit. 4. In so far as the issue relating to the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act qua expenditure incurred in Corporate Social Responsibility ("CSR") is concerned, plea of the assessee is that the assessee donated/ contributed Rs. 3,79,83,500/- towards CSR during the financial year 2016-17 which was debited

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS short credit. 4. In so far as the issue relating to the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act qua expenditure incurred in Corporate Social Responsibility ("CSR") is concerned, plea of the assessee is that the assessee donated/ contributed Rs. 3,79,83,500/- towards CSR during the financial year 2016-17 which was debited

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

TDS etc are allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. In view of the above fact, respectfully following the decision of Kolkata Bench of ITAT, we hold that such expenses are not disallowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Further, VAT laws, provident laws and service tax laws clearly provide for payment of interest if there

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

TDS to an extent of Rs. 9,70.814/- 15. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234B of Rs. 31,16.646/- 16. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234C of Rs. 37,20,130/-. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter

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

37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.12,77,839/-, disallowance of the expenses of Rs.10,00,000/- determined by the Ld. AO on ad-hoc basis and disallowance of expenses pertaining to AY 2010-11 amounting to Rs.11,51,001/-. All these disallowances were made by the Ld. ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page 11 AO due to reason that

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

10,00,000/- shown as cash payment for purchase of new vehicles. Even though the above expenditure is capital in nature, the A.O. made addition u/s 69C of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 29. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

10,00,000/- shown as cash payment for purchase of new vehicles. Even though the above expenditure is capital in nature, the A.O. made addition u/s 69C of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 29. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

10,00,000/- shown as cash payment for purchase of new vehicles. Even though the above expenditure is capital in nature, the A.O. made addition u/s 69C of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. 29. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

TDS cannot be treated as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment. Therefore, following the binding judicial precedent of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, we hold that the interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act is not allowable as a Page

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10% ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure debited under the Head “Rents/JCB/Tipper/ Crane”, but, in our considered view, the said disallowance was made on the basis of directions of the learned PCIT in the order passed under section 263 of the Act, but, the fact remains that, the said direction is beyond the scope of powers of the learned PCIT because

TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

37 of the Act. 8. In Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co.(supra), while considering the nature of interest paid on the delayed payment of cess under the provisions of UP Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when there are provisions dealing with penalty specifically in the enactment, and the enlargement of any amount automatically, without

KALBURGI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was omitted from the section. 21. The position emerging from the above decisions is that it is not necessary for the assessee to show that any legitimate expenditure incurred

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 (vi) Provision For sales 24,37,666 24,37,666 commission (vii) Donation 1,600 3.Disallowance u/s 27,150 27,150 27,150 40A(3) 4. Disallowance u/s 53,49,466 87,79,789 34,30,323 43B 5. Disallowable u/s 57,600 57,600 57,600 40(a)(ia) 6. Disallowance

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

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

10. Therefore, we find force in the assessee’s case to adopt LIBOR rate for benchmarking the transactions of outstanding receivables from the AEs. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer/TPO is directed to adopt the LIBOR + 200 basis as comparable ITA No.1747/Hyd/2019 31 rate for benchmarking the transaction of outstanding receivables from AEs after allowing a credit period of 60 days

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

TDS at Rs.9,42,69,564 as against\nRs. 10,21,50,744\n7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred\nin the levy of the interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act\n8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or\nwithdraw any or all the above grounds

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under Section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

WISSEN TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1082/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Wissen Technology Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Bangalore Circle-17(2) [Pan : Aabcw5249H] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 11/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Siliguri, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant’S Case, The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Of I.T.Act Passed By Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Siliguri, In Adjudicating The Appeal Filed Against Intimation U/S 143(1) Of I.T.Act Is Not Correct Both On The Facts & In The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Appellant’S

section 201(1A) of the Act is an allowable deduction. Lastly, in the case of M/s. Taksheel Solutions Limited (supra), it was held that the interest on TDS is not interest paid on income tax per se and the disallowance thereof, is unwarranted. 10. It is, therefore, clear that the sole issue for consideration in this appeal is no longer