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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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

194-I ; 13 (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9 ;] Section 194C provides as under :- Payments to contractors. 16a194C. (1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

TDS The tax shall be deducted at the flat rate of 10%. The tax shall be deducted at 20% if Section 206AA or Section 206AB apply. MCQs on Joint Development Agreements (JDA) Q1. If an individual or HUF enters into a joint development agreement (JDA) with a builder or joint developer, it shall be deemed that the capital asset

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD vs. EMAAR HILLS TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS and further that the impugned order was also barred by limitation since such an order was passed beyond seven years from the end of the financial year 2005-06. 5. Learned CIT(A), followed the decision of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of Bheemarasetty Sunitha vs. DDIT in ITA No. 119/Viz/2016, dated 23/06/2017, following the decision of the Special

PALLAVI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Pallavi Constructions Vs. Acit Hyderabad Circle 14(1) Pan:Aacfp1600M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.2.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-6, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Properties/Construction. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,16,40,200/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed From The Details Furnished By The Assessee That It Has Claimed An Amount Of Rs.2,72,36,046/- Towards “Bank Interest & Charges”. On Being Asked By The Assessing Officer To Submit The Page 1 Of 8

TDS on interest paid to NBFC i.e., M/s.Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. We find in appeal, the learned CIT (A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee not only sustained the disallowance of Rs.1,40,96,519/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) but enhanced the income by Page

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/-.

194, 194A, 1948 and 19488, respectively. 8.2 Likewise, payments made to contractors and insurance commission, payments made in respect of life insurance policy, and payments made to the non-resident. sportsmen or sports associations are liable for deduction of tax at source under sections 194C, 1940, 1940A, and 194E, respectively. 8.3 As far as payments made to non-residents

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

section 194A and other provisions of the\nAct. In paragraph 2 of that D.O. letter, it was stated that\nwhile paying interest, income-tax was deductible at the\nrates in force during that financial year with effect from 1-4-\n1975, if the amount exceeded Rs.1,000.\nPursuant to those instructions, the Land Acquisition\nOfficers, while depositing the enhanced compensation

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)

194 Taxman 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

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS YBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

TDS on all the corresponding payments made u/s 194C 194(1) and 194J of the Act; as the case may be; respectively. We thus find no reason to interfere with the impugned action of learned lower authorities in principle. 3. Next comes the equally important issue of introduction of s.201(1) first proviso vide Finance

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS YBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

TDS on all the corresponding payments made u/s 194C 194(1) and 194J of the Act; as the case may be; respectively. We thus find no reason to interfere with the impugned action of learned lower authorities in principle. 3. Next comes the equally important issue of introduction of s.201(1) first proviso vide Finance

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS YBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

TDS on all the corresponding payments made u/s 194C 194(1) and 194J of the Act; as the case may be; respectively. We thus find no reason to interfere with the impugned action of learned lower authorities in principle. 3. Next comes the equally important issue of introduction of s.201(1) first proviso vide Finance