ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj\nITI

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj\nITI

SIVA SANKARA REDDY TUNGA,HYDERABAD. vs. ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

TDS Statement): Rs.1,25,775/-; and (iv) time deposit exceeding Rs.2 lakhs or more with Andhra Bank: Rs.26,00,000/- , but had not filed his return of income for the subject year, i.e., AY 2016- 17, issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 25/03/2023

BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Pan – Aaacb 8316K Hyderabad.

section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. From the facts found by the Tribunal, it is evident that the payment of Rs. 2,150 was as a result of infraction of law and not in discharge of a civil liability. The question is answered accordingly.” Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the action

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

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

TDS on payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000/- towards Auditors' Remuneration and professional charges. Consequently, this amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income in the draft assessment. Subsequently, on appeal DRP upheld the said disallowance in its order dated 26.09.2014 and furthermore, the DRP directed the AO to compute income in such

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

TDS on payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000/- towards Auditors' Remuneration and professional charges. Consequently, this amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income in the draft assessment. Subsequently, on appeal DRP upheld the said disallowance in its order dated 26.09.2014 and furthermore, the DRP directed the AO to compute income in such

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD.,),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

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

TDS on payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000/- towards Auditors' Remuneration and professional charges. Consequently, this amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income in the draft assessment. Subsequently, on appeal DRP upheld the said disallowance in its order dated 26.09.2014 and furthermore, the DRP directed the AO to compute income in such

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS & RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

TDS on payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000/- towards Auditors' Remuneration and professional charges. Consequently, this amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income in the draft assessment. Subsequently, on appeal DRP upheld the said disallowance in its order dated 26.09.2014 and furthermore, the DRP directed the AO to compute income in such

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEW CLUB, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 148 of the Act. In this Page 6 of 12 New Club regard, we have gone through relevant portion of page nos. 6 to 8 of the order of Ld. AO, which is to the following effect: “Considering the above specified high-value transactions, we would like to provide you the following explanation for the same. 1) Cash Deposits

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

150,000 | 1,450,000 | | 175,000 | 13,361,011 |\n| 23rd | 3,277,855 | 1,750,000 | 2,750,720 | 620,000 | 2,815,000 | 750,130 | | 859,000 | 12,772,705 |\n| 24th | 5,627,900 | 200,000 | 1,075,000 | 713,650 | 3,045,000 | | | | 10,661,550 |\n| 25th | 8,413,683 | | 2