TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS returns. The question which arises is whether in the abovesaid scenario, can the provisions of section 273B of the Act can be applied in order to decide the issue of levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS returns. The question which arises is whether in the abovesaid scenario, can the provisions of section 273B of the Act can be applied in order to decide the issue of levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) before arriving at the amount of tax payable in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 7. Assessee company aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) before arriving at the amount of tax payable in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 7. Assessee company aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) before arriving at the amount of tax payable in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 7. Assessee company aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) before arriving at the amount of tax payable in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 7. Assessee company aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) before arriving at the amount of tax payable in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 7. Assessee company aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) before arriving at the amount of tax payable in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 7. Assessee company aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company

SRI LAKSHMI ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

140/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI. He submitted that the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed by the Page 3 of 10 ITA No 1209 of 2025 Sri Lakshmi Road Transport Co CPC on 16.10.2019, which was a period when the issue regarding allowability

NEOVANTAGE BIO-TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

140 taxmann.com 304 dated 09.06.2022. He further submitted that, the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is presently under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is sub judice. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that this legal ground be kept open

NEOVANTAGE INNOVATION PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

140 taxmann.com 304 dated 09.06.2022. He further submitted that, the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is presently under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is sub judice. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that this legal ground be kept open

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be given its natural meaning and going by strict interpretation the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to expenditure which is payable

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be given its natural meaning and going by strict interpretation the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to expenditure which is payable

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be given its natural meaning and going by strict interpretation the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to expenditure which is payable

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

section 2(14) of Income Tax Act, 1961" as income from Capital Gain u/s 112. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred by upholding the addition made by learned assessing officer as the Interest Income of Rs. 2,77,140 as unexplained income though the same was reflected in form 26AS

ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SARANYA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

TDS being made. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Special Bench, Visakhapatnam, in the case of M/s. Merillyn Shipping &j Transport not considering the circular of CBDT in No. 10/DV/2013 (F.No.279/Misc./M-61/2012-ITJ, dt. 16.12.2013) 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Special

TPL- SUCG CONSORTIUM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

TDS credit of Rs.60,958/- on Rs.6,09,583/- since interest of Rs.5,09,331/- was offered for taxation in AY 2019-20. Thus, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) and passed assessment order on 15.03.2021 by holding as under : “4 ADDITION OF RETENTION MONEY During the assessment proceeding, vide notice

MADIYAM VENKATARAVINDRA REDDY, ANANTAPUR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

140/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee u/s 154 of the Act on 26.08.2010 proposing rectification of certain mistakes pertaining to expenditure claimed on vehicle maintenance and TDS. No action was taken on this notice. Later a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued