DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

TDS?\nAccordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the\nDepartment Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the\nprovision for educational facilities is being made by assessee\nas a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage\nAgreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms\nof Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said\nprovision is also accepted

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

TDS?\nAccordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the\nDepartment Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the\nprovision for educational facilities is being made by assessee\nas a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage\nAgreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms\nof Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said\nprovision is also accepted

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)

v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS

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)

v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS

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)

v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS

MADHU KUMAR PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT,(INT. TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

47)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The buyer also paid entire consideration and the receipt of the same has been admitted by the vendor and acknowledged in the document itself. Further, the vendor has given vacant position of the said property to the purchaser on 24.3.2015 when the deed of agreement of sale cum GPA was made and executed

AMSRI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C of the IT Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the assessing officer by sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 50% in respect

AMSRI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDRABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C of the IT Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the assessing officer by sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 50% in respect

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C of the IT Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the assessing officer by sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 50% in respect

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.Appeal In Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y 929/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders (P) Dy.Cit 2009-10 Ltd Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan: Aaeca2834R Hyderabad - 932/Hyd/2018 Amsri Infra Projects Do - 2009-10 (P) Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A 1104/Hyd/2018 Jcit (Osd) Central Amsri Builders (P) Ltd, 2009-10 Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeca2834R 1107/Hyd/2018 -Do- Amsri Infra Projects (P) 2009-10 Ltd, Secunderabad Pan:Aagca0788A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri L.V Bhaskar Reddy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Sets Of Cross Appeals(4 Appeals) Filed By Two Assessees As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 2 Separate Orders Dated 12/10/2018 & 5/1/2018 Respectively Of The Learned Cit (A)-11 Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2009-10. Page 1 Of 22

2(47)(v) of the IT Act which was the ground for initiation of action u/s.153C of the IT Act), ought to have dropped the proceedings initiated u/s.153C of the IT Act. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the assessing officer by sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 50% in respect

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:

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS of not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance tax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present case, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption that that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate the capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

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

47 of written submission filed by the appellant at page 55 of the impugned order on the issue of addition of Rs.27,09,00,000/- ought to have decided the issue. The ld.CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue raised in the written submission by the appellant.” 3. The captioned appeal was filed by one of the Managing Partners

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

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with