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(2

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

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

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

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

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

220(2) of the Act of Rs. 6,56,434 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) is without jurisdiction and as such the order is liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact interest

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

220(2) of the Act of Rs. 6,56,434 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) is without jurisdiction and as such the order is liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact interest

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

220(2) of the Act of Rs. 6,56,434 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) is without jurisdiction and as such the order is liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact interest

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

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

2. The assessee during the course of search proceedings as well as assessment\nproceedings accepted that for the year under consideration there is an undisclosed\nturnover of Rs.76.84 crores quantum to Rs.69.79 crores. However, the assessee\nwas urged to produce the complete documentary evidences in support of its claim of\nexpenses of Rs.58.79 crores. Further as per the return

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

220/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order under Section 154 of the Act, dated 10/11/2021, wherein he rectified the rate of tax applied and subjected the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Act to tax under Section 115BBE, enhancing the demand substantially. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal

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

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

2) and 142(1), despite\nrepeated opportunities, the AO completed the assessment to the\nbest of his judgment, vide order passed under Section 144 of the\nAct, dated 26/11/2019, determining its income at Rs.\n3,37,78,220/-.\n3. The AO, while framing the assessment made the following\nadditions/disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance of amount claimed\nunder the head “any other