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)

193/-. 5. Thereafter, the AO observed based on the facts, viz., (i) that the assessee company had reimbursed some expenses of Rs.6,54,33,770/- to M/s. Countrywide Finance Corporation and M/s. CW(UK) Services without any deduction of tax at source (TDS), i.e., in the violation of the provisions of section

CUSTOMER LAB SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

TDS need to be deducted. 3.1. Contending further, assessee submitted to Ld.CIT(A) that AO is of false notion that the said payment Rs. 12,44,072/- would fall under meaning of royalty under the Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi) of the Act. The aforesaid payment is towards affiliate fees. As per the Concise Oxford Dictionary ninth edition

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RA CHEM PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

TDS provision, AO may be justified with his action. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of the AO. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Appeals by the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 11. In these two appeals, the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal, which are common in both the appeals under

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RA CHEM PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

TDS provision, AO may be justified with his action. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of the AO. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Appeals by the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 11. In these two appeals, the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal, which are common in both the appeals under

RA CHEM PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

TDS provision, AO may be justified with his action. Accordingly, the issue is remitted to the file of the AO. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Appeals by the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13 11. In these two appeals, the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal, which are common in both the appeals under

AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

193 creditworthiness of donor and (SC) genuineness of transaction, addition made in terms of section 68 of gift amount was justified Sudhir Kumar Supreme 2016 (2016) 69 SLP dismissed against High Sharma (HUF) Court taxmann.com Court's ruling that where Vs. CIT 219 (SC)/(2016) assessee had failed to give list of 239 Taxman 264 persons who 'advanced cash

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

TDS) (2012) reported in 21 Taxmann.com 489 and GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2010) reported in 193 Taxman 234. 7. From the above, the Ld. CIT (A) came to the conclusion that the assessee is not bound to deduct tax at source as per provisions of section

RAVULA RAVINDER REDDY,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

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.171/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ravula Ravinder Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward – 1 Pan: Bclpr4397F Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/03/2025 आदेश/Order

193/- made in to the bank account during the financial year as unexplained income without giving further opportunity. 4. The assessing officer erred in arriving at the salary as Rs. 4,96,641/- and not allowed Deductions and TDS while arriving at total tax payable. 5. The assessing officer erred in arriving at the interest on SB Accounts

ORBIT 9 ELECTRONICS ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charym/S.Orbit 9 Electronics, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-6(2), [Pan No. Aabfo6265A] Hyderabad

Section 44ADA of the Act inasmuch as the gross business receipts of the assessee exceed the threshold limit of Rs.50 lakhs. Nextly, as a matter of fact, on verification of record, Ld. CIT(A) found that this amount of Rs.1,29,07,148/- which was received from the clients/customers and in respect of which, TDS was deducted was in fact

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS ') amounting to Rs. 3,01,408 attributable to Infor (Bangalore) Private Limited and Rs. 3,49,350 attributable to Approva Systems Private Limited ('transferor companies') which were amalgamated with Appellant with effect from 01 April 2015. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in not granting credit

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,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

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD

TDS applicable as per law in the name of the appellant. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that although the JV/Consortium is a separate entity for the purpose of assessment, but all other activities, including designing, development, and maintenance of the project are undertaken by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once the assessee, being

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80IA(5) only requires filing of return of income but nowhere it states that the claim should be made in the original return and not by way of revised return. It has been held that when the original return was filed within the due date, then the revised return filed, thereafter, before the completion of the assessment proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80IA(5) only requires filing of return of income but nowhere it states that the claim should be made in the original return and not by way of revised return. It has been held that when the original return was filed within the due date, then the revised return filed, thereafter, before the completion of the assessment proceedings

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

Bench: Us.

TDS applicable as per law in the name of the appellant. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that although the JV/Consortium is a separate entity for the purpose of assessment, but all other activities, including designing, development, and maintenance of the project are undertaken by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once the assessee, being

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE,KARIMNAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION-1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

TDS certificate and copies of the dispatch documents such as bills and invoices etc. Part-C of the paper book contains copies of the draft assessment order, the order of the DRP and the final assessment order and also copies of the invoices raised against the supply of equipments and corresponding bills. The assessee has also filed a paper book

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX -1,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ,HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

TDS certificate and copies of the dispatch documents such as bills and invoices etc. Part-C of the paper book contains copies of the draft assessment order, the order of the DRP and the final assessment order and also copies of the invoices raised against the supply of equipments and corresponding bills. The assessee has also filed a paper book

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

TDS certificate and copies of the dispatch documents such as bills and invoices etc. Part-C of the paper book contains copies of the draft assessment order, the order of the DRP and the final assessment order and also copies of the invoices raised against the supply of equipments and corresponding bills. The assessee has also filed a paper book