EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

TDS Range-2, Hyd 08 DV Ramakrishna ITI JDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada 09 Kilaru Viranjancyulu ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad 10 Rajesh Kumar Meena ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad 11 Ravindra Reddy Avula ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad 12 Dandaboina Lingam ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad 13 Ravi Kumar Saroj

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

TDS Range-2, Hyd 08 DV Ramakrishna ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad 09 Kilaru Viranjancyulu ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad 10 Rajesh Kumar Meena ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad 11 Ravindra Reddy Avula ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad 12 Dandaboina Lingam ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad 13 Ravi Kumar Saroj

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The jurisdictional ITAT, Hyderabad in M/s.Vimta Labs Ltd, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle-7(2), Hyderabad (ITA Nos.11, 12 & 1273/2017) dated 24/04/2019 has discussed this issue elaborately and held that the business receipts of foreign residents are not taxable in India since the agents have no PE in India and therefore are not required

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

131 of the Act or to call for information under section 133(6) of the Act from any person on presumption that the said person is a shareholder. Further according to the learned Assessing Officer there is a discrepancy in the letters dated 10/10/2017 and 19/12/2017 in respect of the number of shares proposed to be issued on various dates

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

131 of the Act or to call for information under section 133(6) of the Act from any person on presumption that the said person is a shareholder. Further according to the learned Assessing Officer there is a discrepancy in the letters dated 10/10/2017 and 19/12/2017 in respect of the number of shares proposed to be issued on various dates

ANANTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

TDS to be made. Assessee relied on the judgment in the case of M/s. GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] (SC). However, Ld.CIT(A) took an altogether different stand and rejected the contentions of assessee by stating as under: “5.4. Appellant had entered into an agreement with TM India LLC, Texas to pay a commission

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

131/- 3.2 The A.O was of the opinion that the payment made to Nunhems BV Ltd is a payment towards IT services rendered and is also a payment made to non-resident Indian and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. Page 4 of 38 ITA Nos.290

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

131/- 3.2 The A.O was of the opinion that the payment made to Nunhems BV Ltd is a payment towards IT services rendered and is also a payment made to non-resident Indian and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. Page 4 of 38 ITA Nos.290

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

131/- 3.2 The A.O was of the opinion that the payment made to Nunhems BV Ltd is a payment towards IT services rendered and is also a payment made to non-resident Indian and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act. Page 4 of 38 ITA Nos.290

A. VIDYA SAGAR,,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2011-12 A. Vidya Sagar, Vs. Addl. Cit, Hyderabad. Range-1, Pan: Agapa 6282 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

section 131 of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by observing as under:- “5.6. On verification, I find that there are gaps in the submissions of the appellant. Firstly, the appellant submitted that he is out of country, so that he had not complied with the submissions U/s. 131. Appellant

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

TDS under Section 194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can not be extended the activities of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

MUSADDILALS JEWELLERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2)., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafcm 4841 H

131 of the Act, 1961, and duly served on the assessee. A sworn statement of Sri Ananth Gupta, Director of the assessee company was recorded under oath on 12.03.2015, the contents of which were extracted by the AO in his order at page 2 & 3. According to AO, assessee failed to substantiate the said purchase transactions to be genuine

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

TDS) was Rs.82,73,07,339/- only. The Ld. A.R. submitted that\non a conjoint reading of Clause 34(a) and Clause 21(b)(ii) of “Form\n3CD\", it can safely be gathered that the auditor of the assessee\ncompany had expressed in clear terms that the tax was deducted\nat source to the extent the same was deductible

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

131 (Kerala) is that the department can very well initiate/frame Section 153A assessments for determining total income of an assessee involving Section 132 search action. We find no substance in the latter’s preceding arguments since the hon'ble jurisdictional high court; more particularly, nowhere took a contrary view that the impugned assessments would be valid even in absence

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

131 (Kerala) is that the department can very well initiate/frame Section 153A assessments for determining total income of an assessee involving Section 132 search action. We find no substance in the latter’s preceding arguments since the hon'ble jurisdictional high court; more particularly, nowhere took a contrary view that the impugned assessments would be valid even in absence

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

131 (Kerala) is that the department can very well initiate/frame Section 153A assessments for determining total income of an assessee involving Section 132 search action. We find no substance in the latter’s preceding arguments since the hon'ble jurisdictional high court; more particularly, nowhere took a contrary view that the impugned assessments would be valid even in absence

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

131 (Kerala) is that the department can very well initiate/frame Section 153A assessments for determining total income of an assessee involving Section 132 search action. We find no substance in the latter’s preceding arguments since the hon'ble jurisdictional high court; more particularly, nowhere took a contrary view that the impugned assessments would be valid even in absence

K.B.ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ,RANGA REDDY vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

131 (Kerala) is that the department can very well initiate/frame Section 153A assessments for determining total income of an assessee involving Section 132 search action. We find no substance in the latter’s preceding arguments since the hon'ble jurisdictional high court; more particularly, nowhere took a contrary view that the impugned assessments would be valid even in absence