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

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

11,306/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.30,16,78,531/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of\nTranstroy India Limited. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer\nmade an addition of Rs.79

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

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

11,306/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.30,16,78,531/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of\nTranstroy India Limited. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer\nmade an addition of Rs.79

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

11. In the present facts for the subject\n assessment years, it is an undisputed position that\nthe pending assessment before the Assessing\nOfficer consequent to return filed under Section\n139(1) of the Act for the subject Assessment years\nhad abated. This was on account of the search\nand as provided in the second proviso to Section\n153A

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

11,306/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.30,16,78,531/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of\nTranstroy India Limited. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer\nmade an addition of Rs.79

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

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

5-12-1988. JUDICIAL ANALYSIS\nEXPLAINED IN –\nIn Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer v. Dandu\nSaraswatamта [1994] 205 ITR 587 (AP), the Commissioner\naddressed a D.O. letter dated 1-3-1987 to the then Revenue\nSecretary requesting him to issue instructions to all the\nofficers concerned with land acquisition to deduct income-\ntax on payment of interest

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