DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

1) of the Act and no proceedings have been initiated in this regard. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 10,34,375/- towards Rent a/ c. 23. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

1) of the Act and no proceedings have been initiated in this regard. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 10,34,375/- towards Rent a/ c. 23. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable

HCC CP PL JV,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Hcc Cp Pl Jv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaaah5541G. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Appeared Through Hybrid Mode) Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

TDS has been deducted under Section 194C of the Act and remitted in the name of the assessee, has been considered in the hands of the assessee alone and not in the hands of the constituent partners, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, merely because the assessee has transferred the gross contract receipts on back to back

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

1,00,000/- towards audit fee. It is also an admitted fact that, for the above said expenditure, the assessee has not deducted TDS under Section 194C

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

1,00,000/- towards audit fee. It is also an admitted fact that, for the above said expenditure, the assessee has not deducted TDS under Section 194C

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

1,00,000/- towards audit fee. It is also an admitted fact that, for the above said expenditure, the assessee has not deducted TDS under Section 194C

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

Bench: Us:

1) of the Act, i.e., up to the “due date” of 31/10/2013, disallowed its claim for carry forward loss of Rs. 27,58,236/-. 5. The AO observed that the information available on record revealed that the assessee company had contractual receipts of Rs. 3,20,42,152/- on which tax was deducted at source (TDS) under section 194C

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions under section 194C of the Act and consequent non- disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned PCIT, in light of relevant evidences placed by the Counsel for the Assessee, to justify it’s case. 13. Admittedly, the original assessment

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

194C, 194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

194C, 194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

194C, 194H and 194J of the IT Act, and since the assessee failed to deduct tax from these payments, he held that such expenditure is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Further, the A.O also observed that the assessee has made a provision of Rs.51,91,186/- towards scheme discount i.e the additional discount to the customers who participated

DIWAKAR LOGISTICS ,TADIPATRI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2014-15 M/S.Diwakar Logistics Vs. A.C.I.T Tadipatri Circle – 1 Pan:Aahfd0549E Anantapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.12.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Kurnool, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Fact Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Transportation Of Goods & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,90,390/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited Finance Charges Of Rs.2,81,642/- & Transportation Charges Paid To Others Of Rs.74,57,350/-. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Page 1 Of 8

TDS from the transport charges made to various parties. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.74,57,350/-. 4.1 Similarly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has Page