ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

TDS in\ndefault is Rs.42,55,000/-, the corresponding land cost on which the tax was deducted is\nRs.42,55,00,000/-. The amount disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act being 30% of\nRs.42,55,00,000/- works out to be Rs.12,76,50,000/- and the AO disallowed this amount.\nThe appellant is aggrieved

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE PRASAD JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

TDS as mentioned in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act r.w.s. first Proviso of Section 201(1) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has also held that in case the payee referred to in the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act and had taken into account such return of income, then the assessee (Payee) shall

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

Bench: Us:

1), despite being a company, TDS credits under sections 194A and 194C aggregating over Rs. 3.2 crores and 8 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO time deposits of Rs. 19.54 lakhs were reflected in the 26AS statement, but remained unaccounted. The information clearly constitutes "tangible material" justifying reopening as held in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

TDS to an extent of Rs. 9,70.814/- 15. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234B of Rs. 31,16.646/- 16. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234C of Rs. 37,20,130/-. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter

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 under section 192 of the Act, and since the assessee has failed to deduct tax, the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act has rightly been made and should be upheld. 11. In the rejoinder, the Ld. AR also clarified, by referring to the confirmation placed at page no. 395 of the paper book, that the term

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

192 (Bombay). b) Erred in upholding the flawed approach adopted by the Ld. AO in not granting deduction under section 10A of the Act which was allowed in the subsequent year i.e., AY 2006-07 by the Ld. AO, during the regular assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. 7. Erred in upholding the action

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

TDS is only a vicarious liability, which ceases to exist once the primary liability has been discharged” 11.1 during the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant has produced the assessment order from ITO(IT) and also 26AS of the land seller. 11.2 By Finance Act, 2012, a proviso to Sub-section(1) was introduced whereby if it is proved

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

TDS is only a vicarious liability, which ceases to exist once the primary liability has been discharged” 11.1 during the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant has produced the assessment order from ITO(IT) and also 26AS of the land seller. 11.2 By Finance Act, 2012, a proviso to Sub-section(1) was introduced whereby if it is proved

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs. BADRI MANJULA , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

TDS is only a vicarious liability, which ceases to exist once the primary liability has been discharged” 11.1 during the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant has produced the assessment order from ITO(IT) and also 26AS of the land seller. 11.2 By Finance Act, 2012, a proviso to Sub-section(1) was introduced whereby if it is proved

PRASANTH NANDANURU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

192(1) of the Act. On 18/10/2018 the employment of the assessee was terminated by Wells India and the terminal benefits were paid to him. Assessee claimed that he was part of it as a tax resident of USA and, therefore, eligible to avail the provisions of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) to the extent

OCHRE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD( TDS)-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS)’ in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows: “3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI’, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 200A of the Act is a machinery provision providing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

1)(vii) of the Act. The jurisdictional ITAT, Hyderabad in M/s.Vimta Labs Ltd, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle-7(2), Hyderabad (ITA Nos.11, 12 & 1273/2017) dated 24/04/2019 has discussed this issue elaborately and held that the business receipts of foreign residents are not taxable in India since the agents have no PE in India and therefore are not required to deduct

OCHRE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD (TDS)2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Ochre Media Limited Vs. Ito, Ward (Tds)-2(1) 9-1-129/1, 2Nd Floor I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Oxford Plaza, S.D.Road Hyderabad-500 004 Secunderabad-500 003

1) had levied the Late fee U/s 234E 9. The Appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any ground of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in Media business. It filed its TDS quarterly returns/ statements

AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

TDS deducted by the Foreign Government to the extent of Rs.95,539/- which was claimed as Foreign Tax Credit in accordance with section 91 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) dated 22/03/2022 disallowed the claim of Foreign Tax Credit on the ground that the assessee has not filed Form 67 within

CYIENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2021-22 Cyient Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Apn : Aaac14887J

1, Bangalore and filed certain additional evidences, including details of salaries paid without TDS, employees names, addresses and their PAN numbers and also explained that in all those cases, the total income of the employees does not come under tax bracket and therefore, the question of deduction of TDS does not arise. 14. The DRP forwarded the additional evidence field

KRISHNA HARI GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.668/Hyd/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Krishna Hari Gaddam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(1), [Pan No. Adepg7798Q] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02/11/2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Salaried Employee Of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Fled His Return Of Income, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 86,10,680/- & Paid Total Income Tax Of Rs. 27,37,674/-, Consisting Of Tax Deducted At Source (“Tds”) Of Rs. 15,11,384/- & Self Assessment Tax Of Rs.12,26,290/-. The Cpc Bengluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Dt. 08/05/2021 Did Not Give Credit Of Rs. 13,50,000/- Out Of Total Tds Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Deducted By M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Limited U/S. 192 Of The Act, Contending That Form 26As Does Contains The Details Of Tds Of Rs. 13,50,000/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.14,17,500/-.

1) of the income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dt. 08/05/2021 did not give credit of Rs. 13,50,000/- out of total TDS of Rs. 14,75,000/- deducted by M/s. Karvy Stock Broking Limited u/s. 192 of the Act, contending that Form 26AS does contains the details of TDS of Rs. 13,50,000/- and finally raised

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

TDS credit as per law. The above ground is allowed to that extent accordingly. The Ground nos. 6 & 7 are consequential to the grounds adjudicated above, therefore needs no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before

TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

TDS) is to be allowed, and reads as under: Credit for tax deducted. 199. (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of the security