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

TDS amount does not constitute the tax liability of the 7 assessee and instead, it pertains to the tax liability of the parties for whom the deduction was made and paid by the assessee. To further support this viewpoint, he drew a distinction between interest under section 201(IA) and interest under section 220

POOJA CRAFTED HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 61/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pooja Crafted Homes (P) Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadcp2869A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S K Gupta, राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2024 आदेश/Order

TDS and contended that the same may be allowed as an expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In his written statement, ld. AR for the assessee contended that the interest u/s 201(1A) cannot be compared with the interest paid u/s 220(2) of the Act. In fact, as per section

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

220/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order had mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 270A and 271F will be initiated separately. The contentions of the ld. AR are that : 1) No satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and therefore, penalty order cannot be passed u/s 271B of the Act. 2) Assessee had filed Audit

THOTA RAMAIAH L/R T VASUNDHARA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS Certificates etc. Ld. AR further submitted that section 40A(3) of the Act is applicable only to those expenditures which were incurred by the assessee with an intention to evade the tax and not applicable to genuine business payments made in the regular course of business. He relied on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat

OCHRE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD( TDS)-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

220(2) without giving an opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the levy of FEE U/s 234E amounting to Rs.2,32,800 and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 1,11,970 aggregating to Rs 3,44,770/- for financial 2013-14 by the ITO, ward (TDS), 2(1), Hyderabad

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS charged an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards late filing fee u/s 243E and an amount of Rs.21,600/- charged towards interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. As per the provisions of section

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS charged an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards late filing fee u/s 243E and an amount of Rs.21,600/- charged towards interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. As per the provisions of section

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS charged an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards late filing fee u/s 243E and an amount of Rs.21,600/- charged towards interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. As per the provisions of section

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(TDS)-2(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS charged an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards late filing fee u/s 243E and an amount of Rs.21,600/- charged towards interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. As per the provisions of section

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS charged an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards late filing fee u/s 243E and an amount of Rs.21,600/- charged towards interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. As per the provisions of section

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS charged an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards late filing fee u/s 243E and an amount of Rs.21,600/- charged towards interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T. Act. As per the provisions of section

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

TDS: Rs.1,37,887/-; and (v) addition of unexplained cash deposits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 25,85,800/-. Accordingly, the AO, vide his order passed under Section 144 of the Act, dated 26/11/2019, converted the returned loss into a positive income of Rs. 3,37,78,220

OCHRE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD (TDS)2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Ochre Media Limited Vs. Ito, Ward (Tds)-2(1) 9-1-129/1, 2Nd Floor I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards Oxford Plaza, S.D.Road Hyderabad-500 004 Secunderabad-500 003

220(2) without giving an opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the levy of FEE U/s 234E amounting to RS.2,19,728 and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 71,212 aggregating to Rs 2,90,940/- for financial 2012-13 by the ITO, ward (TDS), 2(1), Hyderabad

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and\nthe revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of\nour observations recorded hereinabove

TDS: Rs.1,37,887/-; and (v) addition of unexplained\ncash deposits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 25,85,800/-. Accordingly,\nthe AO, vide his order passed under Section 144 of the Act, dated\n26/11/2019, converted the returned loss into a positive income\nof Rs. 3,37,78,220

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. R R EDIFICE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.416/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Rr Edifice Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aasfr2521L]

220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Large payments made under section 194C to persons who have not filed return of income”. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee is a contractor doing civil contracts and earth canal works admitted a total contract receipts of Rs.27

R R EDIFICE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.416/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Rr Edifice Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aasfr2521L]

220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Large payments made under section 194C to persons who have not filed return of income”. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee is a contractor doing civil contracts and earth canal works admitted a total contract receipts of Rs.27

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs. BADRI MANJULA , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

TDS is only a vicarious liability, which ceases to exist once the primary liability has been discharged” 11.1 during the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant has produced the assessment order from ITO(IT) and also 26AS of the land seller. 11.2 By Finance Act, 2012, a proviso to Sub-section(1) was introduced whereby if it is proved

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

TDS is only a vicarious liability, which ceases to exist once the primary liability has been discharged” 11.1 during the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant has produced the assessment order from ITO(IT) and also 26AS of the land seller. 11.2 By Finance Act, 2012, a proviso to Sub-section(1) was introduced whereby if it is proved