TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS statements / returns. In this regard, reference is being made to the relevant provisions of the Act. Under Chapter XVII of the Act, duty is upon the person making certain payments to deduct tax at source under the respective sections. The said tax deducted at source is due to be the income received by the deductee as per section 198

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/-.

TDS. - Where taxes have been deducted at source from any payment of income receivable by an assessee, the amount of tax deducted at source would be included in the income of the assessee while computing the income of the assessee and would be deemed to be the income received (section 198

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person 12 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act. 8. Per contra

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act. 8. Per contra

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act. 8. Per contra

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

198/- for A.Y. 2012-13. The above amounts pertain to interest payment on late deposit of TDS. The AR submitted that this TDS paid is compensatory in nature and not in nature of penalty, therefore should be allowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Now the question is, whether the interest paid on TDS is an allowable expenditure

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

198/- for A.Y. 2012-13. The above amounts pertain to interest payment on late deposit of TDS. The AR submitted that this TDS paid is compensatory in nature and not in nature of penalty, therefore should be allowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Now the question is, whether the interest paid on TDS is an allowable expenditure

KOTHAPALLI THIRUMALA VENKATARADHA KRISHNAM RAJU,BACHUPALLY vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)1-, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

198 Taxman 551 (Karnataka) and Utanka Roy vs. DIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 113 (Calcutta) held that the income derived by a non-resident for performing services outside India, the accrual thereof happens outside India, such income cannot be taxed in India under section 5(2) of the Act. 8. Learned DR argued very vehemently in the same line as that

ABRAHAM JUBY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)1-, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

198 Taxman 551 (Karnataka) and Utanka Roy vs. DIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 113 (Calcutta) held that the income derived by a non-resident for performing services outside India, the accrual thereof happens outside India, such income cannot be taxed in India under section 5(2) of the Act. 8. Learned DR argued very vehemently in the same line as that

PAMMINA DILIP KUMAR RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INT. TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

198 Taxman 551 (Karnataka) and Utanka Roy vs. DIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 113 (Calcutta) held that the income derived by a non-resident for performing services outside India, the accrual thereof happens outside India, such income cannot be taxed in India under section 5(2) of the Act. 8. Learned DR argued very vehemently in the same line as that

SAIDI REDDY LOKASANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

198 Taxman 551 (Karnataka) and Utanka Roy vs. DIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 113 (Calcutta) held that the income derived by a non-resident for performing services outside India, the accrual thereof happens outside India, such income cannot be taxed in India under section 5(2) of the Act. 8. Learned DR argued very vehemently in the same line as that

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

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

198 Taxman 551 (Karnataka) and Utanka Roy vs. DIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 113 (Calcutta) held that the income derived by a non-resident for performing services outside India, the accrual thereof happens outside India, such income cannot be taxed in India under section 5(2) of the Act. 8. Learned DR argued very vehemently in the same line as that

DURGA PRASAD SANA,SRIKAKULAM vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIZAG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-It No. 382/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Durga Prasad Sana, Income Tax Officer, Sompeta, Vs. Ward (Int.Tax), Srikakulam Vizag [Pan No. Bdrps6860D] अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Ar राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा /Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing: सुनवाई 08/08/2023 की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement On: 16/08/2023 घोषणा

198 Taxman 551 (Karnataka) and Utanka Roy vs. DIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 113 (Calcutta) held that the income derived by a non-resident for performing services outside India, the accrual thereof happens outside India, such income cannot be taxed in India under section 5(2) of the Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

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

section 14A are not applicable. 6.10. Without prejudice to the above, erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.10,68,463/ - instead of restricting the disallowance to the extent of income claimed/ earned as exempt during the year. Additional Grounds of Appeal Without prejudice to the grounds no. 1 to 8 filed on 30.01.2018, herewith we submit: Each of the grounds

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

TDS, which attracts disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961. Therefore, by the profit which should be more than the\nundisclosed turnover. The AO rejected the assessee's contention regarding thin\nprofit margins, expenses in seized material and voluntary disclosure of\nincome, where verifiable evidence were not produced.\n9. In view of the overall facts and circumstances

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

TDS particulars, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee deducted tax at source contemporaneously and not after the search and seizure operations. g) The Assessing Officer once again referred to the statement of Sri D.Sreedhar Reddy, M.D. who agreed to admit additional income. However, the Assessing Officer did not comment on the affidavits of the Managing Director and the other

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

TDS particulars, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee deducted tax at source contemporaneously and not after the search and seizure operations. g) The Assessing Officer once again referred to the statement of Sri D.Sreedhar Reddy, M.D. who agreed to admit additional income. However, the Assessing Officer did not comment on the affidavits of the Managing Director and the other