COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 27 Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited 20. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in the case of Synergies Castings

PURPLETALK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of\nthe Act.\n15. The Ld. AO legally erred in disallowing interest paid\non TDS

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

TDS applicable as per law in the name of the appellant. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that although the JV/Consortium is a separate entity for the purpose of assessment, but all other activities, 16 including designing, development, and maintenance of the project are undertaken by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

Section 56(2)(viib) FMV “as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the AO, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises, or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature.” Hence, he valued FMV of shares

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

24)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the said addition by following various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts wherein it was held that if the assessee has made the payment on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1), then the same is allowable

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1330/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Constructions The Income Tax Officer, Nirmal. Telangana. Ward-1, Vs. Pin – 504 106. Nirmal – 504 106. Pan Aapfk1280K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar,Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

x. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2,20,45,610/- made by Ld. AO without properly appreciating the submission advanced by the assessee and hence, the said addition of Rs.2,20,45,610/- is not sustainable in law.] xi. On the facts

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

x. Alleging the duplication of services, determining the arm's length of marketing and support services paid to DRL Russia at 50% of the total amount paid on ad-hoc basis. xi. erred in application of "the other method" without determining any arm's length price. 4 ITA.Nos.490 & 491/Hyd./2022 4. That on the facts and circumstances

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

x. Alleging the duplication of services, determining the arm's length of marketing and support services paid to DRL Russia at 50% of the total amount paid on ad-hoc basis. xi. erred in application of "the other method" without determining any arm's length price. 4 ITA.Nos.490 & 491/Hyd./2022 4. That on the facts and circumstances

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

24,310/- towards Rents/JCB/ Tipper/Crane. However, as seen from the Form-3CD, no TDS was made on the above amount and there is no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, either in the ITR of the assessee are in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer failed to verify the above three issues in light of relevant facts

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

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

2) of the Act. (b) Not appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant that the payments made to recipient/s are not chargeable to tax in India and accordingly, taxes were not liable to be deducted on the same and have erred in concluding that the Appellant is required to deduct TDS on payment for business support service expenses

SRI LAKSHMI ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

X apply only when there is any income arising from the international transaction, 5. The Ld. DRP/TPO erred in not appreciating that the amendment to section 92B would not apply to the year under consideration as it was inserted on a later date. The amendment has to be interpreted as prospective in nature. 6. The Ld. DRP/TPO erred

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

x) Tata Elxsi Limited xi) Cosmic Global Limited xii) BNR Udyog Limited 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds on incorrect selection of functionally dissimilar comparable companies while benchmarking the ITES Services (ITeS) segment of the Appellant, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO erred in incorrectly computing the margin

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS was deductible on such expenditure. 11. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO ought to have allowed 10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD.,),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS was deductible on such expenditure. 11. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO ought to have allowed 10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS was deductible on such expenditure. 11. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO ought to have allowed 10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering