DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC. The AO while disallowing the claim also observed that the appellant is a works contractor and the company executes contract only and is not a developer for the 23 projects on which deduction u/s. 80IA has been claimed. In view of the same an opportunity was given to the AO to explain the same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC. The AO while disallowing the claim also observed that the appellant is a works contractor and the company executes contract only and is not a developer for the 23 projects on which deduction u/s. 80IA has been claimed. In view of the same an opportunity was given to the AO to explain the same

PRASANTH NANDANURU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 5(2)(a) of the Act but not by 5(2)(b) of the Act. In respect of Article 16(1) of DTAA, learned DR submitted that such an article is not applicable to the case of the assessee, Page 4 of 11 ITA-IT No. 369/Hyd/2022 because, the assessee was exercising the employment pursuant to the contract with

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

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

11. In this view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the 14 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that, the assessee is not entitled

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

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

11. In this view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the 14 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that, the assessee is not entitled

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)

11,90,000/- made under Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of Rs. 2,91,31,153/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS

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)

11,90,000/- made under Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of Rs. 2,91,31,153/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS

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)

11,90,000/- made under Section 69C of the Act. 31. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is disallowance of Rs. 2,91,31,153/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad. Pan:Aaalh0058D …..Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. M/S. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad. …..Respondent.

section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to allow the amount of TDS as application of income. 9.2 Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the TDS was primarily deducted on the sale of land. The assessee is only an agent of state government as far as the receipt of sale proceeds of land

ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad. Pan:Aaalh0058D …..Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. M/S. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad. …..Respondent.

section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to allow the amount of TDS as application of income. 9.2 Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the TDS was primarily deducted on the sale of land. The assessee is only an agent of state government as far as the receipt of sale proceeds of land

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

11. It is, therefore, clear that the question that is relevant to be answered on this issue is whether the donations given for compliance with the provisions under section 135 of the Companies Act, to the institutions mentioned in section 80G(2) of the Act are qualified for deduction under section 80G of the Act also. 12. Explanation

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

11. It is, therefore, clear that the question that is relevant to be answered on this issue is whether the donations given for compliance with the provisions under section 135 of the Companies Act, to the institutions mentioned in section 80G(2) of the Act are qualified for deduction under section 80G of the Act also. 12. Explanation

RAJESH DADU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajesh Dadu Vs. Dy.C.I.T. Hyderabad Circle 4(1) Pan:Aerpd6385C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Radha Krishna, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9.11.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit (A)- Nfac In Upholding The Order Passed By The Cpc In Not Giving Credit Of Tds Amount Of Rs.10,11,000/-.

section 1941A of the Act, but the same was not deposited by the vendee into Central Government account and no Form 26B uploaded by him. From the details furnished by the assessee, it is not clear/evident whether the vendee/agreement holder Mr.Pardeep Ramrakhyani had made TDS of Rs.10,11,000/-. it is the plea of the assessee that the said amount

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

TDS and further disallowance of EPF & ESI under Section 36(1)(va) for Rs. 3,66,095/-, addition towards disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) for Rs. 11,08,678/-, disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee under the head ‘trade discounts' and 'seed purchases' to the tune of Rs. 18,31,21,070/- and addition towards

HCC CP PL JV,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Hcc Cp Pl Jv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaaah5541G. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Appeared Through Hybrid Mode) Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the LD.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its submissions made before the Assessing Officer and argued that the provisions of Section 238(1) of the Act, are not applicable to the assessee because the assessee has reported the amount received from NFR, as income

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

11 July 2022 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO/DRP erred in determination of Arm's Length Price

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

11 July 2022 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO/AO/DRP erred in determination of Arm's Length Price

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

5 and 9. One should not read s. 195 to mean that the moment there is a remittance, the obligation to TDS automatically arises. If the contention of the Department is to be taken as correct, that any person making payment to a non- resident is necessarily required to deduct tax, then the consequence would be that the Department would

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:

11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section