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

Bench: Us:

2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee company during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions/receipt of income, viz. (i) receipt of payments towards contracts: Rs.3,20,42,152/-; (ii) interest income: Rs.92,069/-; and (iii) 4 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO time deposits with bank: Rs.19,54,348/-, but had not filed

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

14 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 time to collect the records for filing the e-TDS statements. The assessee however, failed to comply with notice and the Assessing Officer held the assessee to be liable for levy of penalty under section 272A(2

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

14 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 time to collect the records for filing the e-TDS statements. The assessee however, failed to comply with notice and the Assessing Officer held the assessee to be liable for levy of penalty under section 272A(2

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

14 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 time to collect the records for filing the e-TDS statements. The assessee however, failed to comply with notice and the Assessing Officer held the assessee to be liable for levy of penalty under section 272A(2

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

14. Coming to the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no express provision to support the contention of Revenue. On the other hand, section 80G(2)(iiihk) and (iiihl) of the Act expressly provide that such sums donated for Swatch Bharath Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund shall be the amounts other than the sums spent by the assessee in pursuance

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

14. Coming to the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no express provision to support the contention of Revenue. On the other hand, section 80G(2)(iiihk) and (iiihl) of the Act expressly provide that such sums donated for Swatch Bharath Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund shall be the amounts other than the sums spent by the assessee in pursuance

SKANDHANSHI DEVELOPERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

TDS, which attracts disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, considering the overall scenario including relevant books of accounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating material found during the course of search observed that, the profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during the course of search proceedings should be more than the profit percentage

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

TDS statements and remitted the tax deducted at source within the prescribed time limits, therefore, there was no infirmity in levy of interest under section 220(2) of Act by the CPC. 13. Accordingly, the CIT(A), based on his aforesaid observations, dismissed the appeal. 14

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

TDS statements and remitted the tax deducted at source within the prescribed time limits, therefore, there was no infirmity in levy of interest under section 220(2) of Act by the CPC. 13. Accordingly, the CIT(A), based on his aforesaid observations, dismissed the appeal. 14

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

14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad’s common order dated 09/10/2019 involving proceedings

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

14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad’s common order dated 09/10/2019 involving proceedings

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

14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad’s common order dated 09/10/2019 involving proceedings

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

14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad’s common order dated 09/10/2019 involving proceedings

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

14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad’s common order dated 09/10/2019 involving proceedings

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

14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad’s common order dated 09/10/2019 involving proceedings

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

14(2), PAN – AAACB 2100P Hyderabad. Assessee by: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of pronouncement: 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH.: All these appeals of the Assessee are directed against the CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad’s common order dated 09/10/2019 involving proceedings

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)

TDS or justification for non-deduction and, therefore, sustained the addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained additions to the tune of Rs. 2,91,30,152/- and Rs.44,24,840/- for A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20, respectively. 13. Aggrieved by the order

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)

TDS or justification for non-deduction and, therefore, sustained the addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained additions to the tune of Rs. 2,91,30,152/- and Rs.44,24,840/- for A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20, respectively. 13. Aggrieved by the order

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)

TDS or justification for non-deduction and, therefore, sustained the addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained additions to the tune of Rs. 2,91,30,152/- and Rs.44,24,840/- for A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20, respectively. 13. Aggrieved by the order