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

5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee filed written submissions, which are as under: “AS REGARDS GROUND NO. I: TREATING ASSESSEE AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE "(TDS)" UNDER SECTION "(U/S.)" 201 READ WITH SECTION "(R.W.S.)" 194H OF THE ACT WITHOUT ASCERTAINING AND PROVING THE FACT AS TO WHETHER RECIPIENT OF INCOME

KATEPALLY VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM ,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),WARD-1, KURNOOL

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

184 TR (A)191 (Karn-HC) f. Rose Rock Real Estate India Pvt Ltd Vs. AC1T- TDS & Ors in ITA No. 4824, 4823/Mum/20 19 (ITAT - Mum) dated 02.09.2021 Held it is undisputed that period of TDS return is prior to the amendment. At that time there was no enabling provision for levying interest under section 234E……..Hence to conclude since

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

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

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

184 2021-22 5,50,26,236 3,24,31,368 2022-23 4,74,93,505 2,73,44,540 2023-24 3,46,39,767 4,25,14,726 Total Rs.65,91,24,940 42,28,32,928 3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

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

184 2021-22 5,50,26,236 3,24,31,368 2022-23 4,74,93,505 2,73,44,540 2023-24 3,46,39,767 4,25,14,726 Total Rs.65,91,24,940 42,28,32,928 3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS was applicable on the same. However, in the present facts of the Appellant, the issue is not whether the payment for obtaining licenses of software and software maintenance would be royalty or not and whether there would be any tax required to be deducted at source. The issue here is whether the expenditure incurred would be revenue or capital

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ZELAN PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Zelan Projects Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 17(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacz2265B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

5 raised by the revenue on this issue is dismissed. 6. As regards disallowance of purchase liability created towards sub-contractors/suppliers of Rs. 10,65,15,184/- ,raised in ground No. 3, the AO observed that from the notes to financial statements for the year under consideration, the assessee had shown an amount

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

TDS, which attracts disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961. Therefore, by the profit which should be more than the\nundisclosed turnover. The AO rejected the assessee's contention regarding thin\nprofit margins, expenses in seized material and voluntary disclosure of\nincome, where verifiable evidence were not produced.\n9. In view of the overall facts and circumstances

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

TDS provisions\nand the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any\nspecific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to\nprovisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of\njurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

RAJESH DADU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajesh Dadu Vs. Dy.C.I.T. Hyderabad Circle 4(1) Pan:Aerpd6385C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Radha Krishna, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9.11.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit (A)- Nfac In Upholding The Order Passed By The Cpc In Not Giving Credit Of Tds Amount Of Rs.10,11,000/-.

section 1941A of the Act, but the same was not deposited by the vendee into Central Government account and no Form 26B uploaded by him. From the details furnished by the assessee, it is not clear/evident whether the vendee/agreement holder Mr.Pardeep Ramrakhyani had made TDS of Rs.10,11,000/-. it is the plea of the assessee that the said amount

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024

5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the LD.CIT(A). Before the LD.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its arguments made before the AO and 7 submitted that, it has satisfied all the three conditions provided under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, for claiming deduction towards profits derived from eligible project. The appellant further