ANANTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

section is about genesis or accruing or arising in India, by virtue of connection with the property in India, control and management vested in India, which are not satisfied in the present cases. Under these circumstances, withdrawal of earlier circulars issued by the CBDT has no assistance to the Department, in any way, in disallowing such expenditure. It appears that

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

section 143(3) rws 144B on 26.09.2022 contains errors\nprejudicial to the Interests of revenue. It was found from the Form 3CD report filed by\nthe assessee that the assessee company had made payments to the contractors to the\ntune of Rs.335,23,02,114/-. However, it has deducted TDS u/s.194C of the Income Tax\nAct to the tune

KRISHNA HARI GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.668/Hyd/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Krishna Hari Gaddam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(1), [Pan No. Adepg7798Q] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02/11/2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Salaried Employee Of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Fled His Return Of Income, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 86,10,680/- & Paid Total Income Tax Of Rs. 27,37,674/-, Consisting Of Tax Deducted At Source (“Tds”) Of Rs. 15,11,384/- & Self Assessment Tax Of Rs.12,26,290/-. The Cpc Bengluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Dt. 08/05/2021 Did Not Give Credit Of Rs. 13,50,000/- Out Of Total Tds Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Deducted By M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Limited U/S. 192 Of The Act, Contending That Form 26As Does Contains The Details Of Tds Of Rs. 13,50,000/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.14,17,500/-.

TDS credit to the assessee, however there is no fault on the-part of the assessee. On a careful consideration of the facts of the present case, we find that the issue in this appeal is similar to the issue decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Harshdip Singh Dhillon vs. Union of India (supra

CUSTOMER LAB SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

TDS need to be deducted. 3.1. Contending further, assessee submitted to Ld.CIT(A) that AO is of false notion that the said payment Rs. 12,44,072/- would fall under meaning of royalty under the Explanation 2 to section 9(l)(vi) of the Act. The aforesaid payment is towards affiliate fees. As per the Concise Oxford Dictionary ninth edition

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

234 E fees in respect of form 260, Quarter 3 F.Y. 2012-13 and there is no mention of any rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also filed by the appellant in respect of rectification u/s 154 of late filing fees u/s 234E

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

234 E fees in respect of form 260, Quarter 3 F.Y. 2012-13 and there is no mention of any rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also filed by the appellant in respect of rectification u/s 154 of late filing fees u/s 234E

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

234 E fees in respect of form 260, Quarter 3 F.Y. 2012-13 and there is no mention of any rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also filed by the appellant in respect of rectification u/s 154 of late filing fees u/s 234E

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

234 E fees in respect of form 260, Quarter 3 F.Y. 2012-13 and there is no mention of any rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also filed by the appellant in respect of rectification u/s 154 of late filing fees u/s 234E

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

234 E fees in respect of form 260, Quarter 3 F.Y. 2012-13 and there is no mention of any rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also filed by the appellant in respect of rectification u/s 154 of late filing fees u/s 234E

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

234 E fees in respect of form 260, Quarter 3 F.Y. 2012-13 and there is no mention of any rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also filed by the appellant in respect of rectification u/s 154 of late filing fees u/s 234E

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

234 E fees in respect of form 260, Quarter 3 F.Y. 2012-13 and there is no mention of any rectification u/s 154 being requested. Copy of application u/s 154 dated 19.03.2018 before ITO TDS-2(2), Hyderabad was also filed by the appellant in respect of rectification u/s 154 of late filing fees u/s 234E

SHASHIKALA RAM KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

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

TDS in respect of interest and financial charges, and Rs. 2,62,06,238/- under section 40A(3) of the Act for making cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- in contravention of the provisions of law. 3. In appeal, assessee produced certificates relevant under proviso to section 201(1) of the Act to the tune

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

234/- towards Postage & courier charges. 32. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 4,55,600/- towards Recruitment expenses. 33. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 53,84,615/- towards House

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

234/- towards Postage & courier charges. 32. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 4,55,600/- towards Recruitment expenses. 33. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 53,84,615/- towards House

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

234), IBM India Ltd (290 ITR 183). Assessing Officer, after considering the explanation of the assessee and after examining the nature of software purchased, held that the purchases are capital in nature and further held that the same is eligible for depreciation @ 25%. During the appellate proceedings it is submitted by the assessee that they are in ITES business

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

TDS) (2012) reported in 21 Taxmann.com 489 and GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2010) reported in 193 Taxman 234. 7. From the above, the Ld. CIT (A) came to the conclusion that the assessee is not bound to deduct tax at source as per provisions of section

PITTI ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Pitti Electrical Vs Income Tax Officer Equipment Private Ltd Ward 16 ( 4 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccp8334P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Pitti Electrical Equipment Income Tax, Circle 16(2) Private Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccp8334P (Appellant) (Respondent)

234 and from the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs to Smt. Madhuri S. Pitti towards business administration consultancy fee for the year from which TDS of Rs.60,000 was also made. Observing that she is a family member of the promoter, he invoked provisions of section

SIVA SANKARA REDDY TUNGA,HYDERABAD. vs. ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Us:

TDS Statement): Rs.1,25,775/-; and (iv) time deposit exceeding Rs.2 lakhs or more with Andhra Bank: Rs.26,00,000/- , but had not filed his return of income for the subject year, i.e., AY 2016- 17, issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 25/03/2023

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS has been deducted u/s.195 of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, in absence of proper explanation offered by the assessee with supporting documentary evidences such as bank statements etc., the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee for assessment u/sec.147 of the Act and issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act originally under old procedure