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)

TDS under Section 194C of the Act in respect of freight and forwarding charges, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the A.O. to disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS] and not allowable under section 36/37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once again, the assessee has filed relevant evidences and 16

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

16. Controversy involved in the present appeal primarily hinges around the aspect, as to whether or not the assessee company had delayed in filing the TDS returns, rendering it exigible to saddling of fees under section

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

TDS was deducted, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(i) is upheld. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is dismissed. 13. The Ground No.3 of the assessee pertains to the addition of Rs.3,49,255/- made by the Ld. AO on account of disallowance of certain expenses under section 44DA

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

Section 199(1) and Rule 37BA(1) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer and LD.CIT(A) have erred in withdrawing the TDS credit claimed by the assessee in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year. 18 16

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

16. Reconcile the sales with Sales Tax Return / Service Tax Return and purchases with VAT statement. Also furnish copies of the sales-tax return and VAT return for the relevant financial year. 17. Reconcile the amount offered for taxation with the amount received as per the TDS statements/26AS. 18. Details of other operating revenue of Rs.592151550 and non-operating income

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

16. Controversy involved in the present appeal primarily hinges around the aspect, as to whether or not the assessee company had delayed in filing the Vivimed Labs Limited vs. DCIT TDS returns, rendering it exigible to saddling of fees under section

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS by following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., 239 ITR 435 (Mad), where it has been held that, interest under Section 201(1A) paid by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. On appeal

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E. Therefore, this ground may be treated as not pressed. We draw your attention to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd 221 CTR 631 Paper book pages 16-20 Head note 2. Hindustan Aluminium Corp Ltd Vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal HC) Paper Book pages 21 to 23. 3. Northern Coalfields Ltd Vs ACIT