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)

3 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS. 49. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish details of TDS deducted on various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account. Since the assessee

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)

3 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS. 49. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish details of TDS deducted on various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account. Since the assessee

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)

3 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS. 49. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish details of TDS deducted on various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account. Since the assessee

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

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

TDS) under Section 194C of the Act of Rs.\n1,36,78,178/- on the contract payments of only Rs.\n82,64,73,583/-. The Pr. CIT, based on the aforesaid facts, held a\nfirm conviction that as the “Faceless Assessing Officer” (for short,\n“FAO”) had, while framing the assessment not verified the reason\nfor non-deduction

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) on 09-04-2021 shall not be revised in terms of Section 263 of the Act, because the assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issue of genuineness of expenditure incurred by the assessee

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

194C(7) of the Act wherein under the rigors of the section vis-à-vis the transporters was scaled down to a great extent and therefore the order of the Ld CIT (A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 74,57,350/- is unsustainable in law. (3) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

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

Section 194C and credited to the Central Government account. The assessee in the books of accounts credited gross contract receipts from NFR, as its Revenue from operations and amount distributed to 3 constituent partners as other expenses. The assessee has declared nil profits from the contract works. 3. The assessee company has filed its return of income

V S A INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

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

TDS under Section 194C of the Act. The assessee had also furnished return of income filed by subcontractors for the relevant assessment years where the subcontractors had reported contract revenue received from the assessee in the return of income filed for the assessment year and also paid taxes. Since the assessee has furnished all the evidences and proved the genuineness

V S A INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

TDS under Section 194C of the Act. The assessee had also furnished return of income filed by subcontractors for the relevant assessment years where the subcontractors had reported contract revenue received from the assessee in the return of income filed for the assessment year and also paid taxes. Since the assessee has furnished all the evidences and proved the genuineness