DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

184 CTR\n(ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of\nSection 153A of the Act coupled with Circular No.7 of\n2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is\ninitiated under Section 132 of the Act, the AO shall issue\na notice to such person for six assessment years and\nassess or reassess the total income

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

184 CTR\n(ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of\nSection 153A of the Act coupled with Circular No.7 of\n2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is\ninitiated under Section 132 of the Act, the AO shall issue\na notice to such person for six assessment years and\nassess or reassess the total income

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

184\n(Bom), has quashed prosecution proceedings on the basis of the\ncancellation of penalty by the Appellate Authority. We therefore\nfind that there is a close connection between penalty and\nprosecution proceedings and therefore, to safeguard his interest in\nthe prosecution proceedings, where the assessee has filed the\npresent appeals, the assessee cannot be denied and deprived of\nhis

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

SKANDA BUILDERS,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

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 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

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