SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

TDS credits. Hence, the addition of Rs. 92,069/-is sustained. 5.4. The appellant has raised several grounds 5.4. The against the addition of Unexplained Investment u/s 69B at Rs.19,54,348/- The AO made an addition of Rs. 19,54,348/- as unexplained time deposits since no source was explained during the assessment proceedings. The appellant contends that these

IDEA CELLULAR LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, WARD-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS) (156 TTJ 569) (Lucknow Trib.) • Ramakrishna Vedanta Math vs. Income-tax Officer (24 Taxmann.com 29)(Kol.) AS REGARDS GROUND II & III: TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN "ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT" U/S. 201 OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 194H OF THE ACT ON DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO THE PRE-PAID DISTRIBUTORS ("THE DISTRIBUTORS") IN RESPECT OF SUPPLY

IDEA CELLULAR LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, WARD-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS) (156 TTJ 569) (Lucknow Trib.) • Ramakrishna Vedanta Math vs. Income-tax Officer (24 Taxmann.com 29)(Kol.) AS REGARDS GROUND II & III: TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN "ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT" U/S. 201 OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S. 194H OF THE ACT ON DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO THE PRE-PAID DISTRIBUTORS ("THE DISTRIBUTORS") IN RESPECT OF SUPPLY

FRONTIERS INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2015-16 Frontiers Infra Projects India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcf 3873 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Sri P. Suresh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am:

section 156 of the Act U/s. 201(1) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds on legality, non-adjudication of the ground of appeal as raised on the issue is deemed to have allowed. 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground No.3 being the charge

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1401/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sheladia Associates Inc. Vs. Adit (International Secunderabad Taxation)-2 Pan : Aafcs7792F Hyderabad

TDS u/s 195 of the Act. The assessee challenged the proposed disallowance before the DRP and also furnished some additional details and supporting evidence on which, the DRP called for a remand report from the AO. After considering the remand report, the DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee and consequently, final assessment order was passed

SUKESINI KUMILI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("The Assessee") Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

TDS Statement Interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) ANDHRA BANK, SITAPHALMANDI BR. 5 AMOUNT PAID OR CREDITED 31,890 7. 3. On the basis of above information, which reveals that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amount to the tune of Rupees more than 50 lakhs, for the year

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) Madhucon Projects Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 14(2) Pan:Aabcm4757 Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order

TDS in respect of the alleged payments and also remitted to the govt. account except an amount of Rs.40,495/-. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that even the Assessing Officer has issued a notice u/s 156 dated 26/09/2019 whereby raised the demand of Rs.40,495/- which shows that the assessee has already complied with the provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

TDS, the ground no.9 of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.5,73,480/- under section 40A(3) of the Act and the ground no. 10 of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.11,67,82,251/- on account of assets written off. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that all the aforesaid amounts were duly reported

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

TDS, the ground no.9 of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.5,73,480/- under section 40A(3) of the Act and the ground no. 10 of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.11,67,82,251/- on account of assets written off. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that all the aforesaid amounts were duly reported

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri Rifaur Rahman

TDS default No. (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. SREI Finance Ltd 15,11,719/- 1,51,172/- 2. TML Finance Services Ltd 115,40,120/- 1,54,012/- 3. Tata Capital Limited 7,23,581/- 72,358/- 4. GE Capital Finance Services 98,115/- 9,812/- Ltd 5. Reliance Capital Ltd 3,67,407/- 36,741/- Below Limit 6. Kotak Mahindra Prime

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. T. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri Rifaur Rahman

TDS default No. (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. SREI Finance Ltd 15,11,719/- 1,51,172/- 2. TML Finance Services Ltd 115,40,120/- 1,54,012/- 3. Tata Capital Limited 7,23,581/- 72,358/- 4. GE Capital Finance Services 98,115/- 9,812/- Ltd 5. Reliance Capital Ltd 3,67,407/- 36,741/- Below Limit 6. Kotak Mahindra Prime

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri Rifaur Rahman

TDS default No. (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. SREI Finance Ltd 15,11,719/- 1,51,172/- 2. TML Finance Services Ltd 115,40,120/- 1,54,012/- 3. Tata Capital Limited 7,23,581/- 72,358/- 4. GE Capital Finance Services 98,115/- 9,812/- Ltd 5. Reliance Capital Ltd 3,67,407/- 36,741/- Below Limit 6. Kotak Mahindra Prime

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri Rifaur Rahman

TDS default No. (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. SREI Finance Ltd 15,11,719/- 1,51,172/- 2. TML Finance Services Ltd 115,40,120/- 1,54,012/- 3. Tata Capital Limited 7,23,581/- 72,358/- 4. GE Capital Finance Services 98,115/- 9,812/- Ltd 5. Reliance Capital Ltd 3,67,407/- 36,741/- Below Limit 6. Kotak Mahindra Prime

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri Rifaur Rahman

TDS default No. (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. SREI Finance Ltd 15,11,719/- 1,51,172/- 2. TML Finance Services Ltd 115,40,120/- 1,54,012/- 3. Tata Capital Limited 7,23,581/- 72,358/- 4. GE Capital Finance Services 98,115/- 9,812/- Ltd 5. Reliance Capital Ltd 3,67,407/- 36,741/- Below Limit 6. Kotak Mahindra Prime

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri Rifaur Rahman

TDS default No. (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. SREI Finance Ltd 15,11,719/- 1,51,172/- 2. TML Finance Services Ltd 115,40,120/- 1,54,012/- 3. Tata Capital Limited 7,23,581/- 72,358/- 4. GE Capital Finance Services 98,115/- 9,812/- Ltd 5. Reliance Capital Ltd 3,67,407/- 36,741/- Below Limit 6. Kotak Mahindra Prime

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri Rifaur Rahman

TDS default No. (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. SREI Finance Ltd 15,11,719/- 1,51,172/- 2. TML Finance Services Ltd 115,40,120/- 1,54,012/- 3. Tata Capital Limited 7,23,581/- 72,358/- 4. GE Capital Finance Services 98,115/- 9,812/- Ltd 5. Reliance Capital Ltd 3,67,407/- 36,741/- Below Limit 6. Kotak Mahindra Prime

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. C. I.T. Vs. Jaya Balajee Real Media Central Circle 2(3) P Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecb3005 F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3/Hyd/2020) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaya Balajee Real Media P Vs. Dy. C. I.T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aaecb3005 F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.10.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Also Filed A C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

TDS has not been deducted, the assessee has voluntarily disallowed Rs.4,79,25,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) in the computation of income and the balance amount of Rs.7,87,07,668/- was not disallowed. So far as the submission of the assessee that the deductees’ have offered the amount for taxation in their respective returns in the relevant A.Ys

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

TDS, and if the people to whom the monies have been paid have offered the same in their incomes, then there is no scope for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). He further submits that this amendment has been deemed to be retrospective from the day the section was introduced. The Assessee relies on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court