ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 234B and 234C despite the TDS Amount being sufficient to cover the entire tax liability computed as per contested

DCIT., (INTERNATION TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA INTERNATIONAL B V, NETHERLAND

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS has been made by the payee company without appreciating the fact that the interest u/s.234C is governed by the provisions of Sec.234C which speaks about charging of interest u/s.234C when the assessee has not paid the whole amount of tax payable in respect of the subject dividend income by the end of the financial year i.e 31.03.2023. ITA No.727/Hyd/2024

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

TDS default of Rs.3,488/-under section 37(1) of\nthe Act.\n16. The Ld AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 2348\nand 234C

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

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)

234C On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B/234C of the Act. 11. Penalty Proceedings On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Ld. AO / Ld. DRP have erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A and 271AA, without considering

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

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)

TDS Credit of the transferor company to successor or transferee company even though the income of the transferor company is already considered by the successor company. 18.3 The Ld. AO erred in law and facts by not granting any TCS credit vis-à-vis INR 1,29,734/- as claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS of INR 2,389. :- 9 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 23. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred by granting credit of advance tax of INR 28,30,00,000 as against the eligible advance tax credit of INR 35,66,82,429 available to the Appellant. thereby

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS of INR 2,389. :- 9 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 23. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred by granting credit of advance tax of INR 28,30,00,000 as against the eligible advance tax credit of INR 35,66,82,429 available to the Appellant. thereby

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax available in Form 26AS of KVR Rail Infra Projects Pvt Ltd should have been allowed to the assessee company. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not appreciating the fact that the AO has inappropriately applied the provisions of section 234A, 234B & 234C

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax available in Form 26AS of KVR Rail Infra Projects Pvt Ltd should have been allowed to the assessee company. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not appreciating the fact that the AO has inappropriately applied the provisions of section 234A, 234B & 234C

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax available in Form 26AS of KVR Rail Infra Projects Pvt Ltd should have been allowed to the assessee company. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not appreciating the fact that the AO has inappropriately applied the provisions of section 234A, 234B & 234C

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax available in Form 26AS of KVR Rail Infra Projects Pvt Ltd should have been allowed to the assessee company. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not appreciating the fact that the AO has inappropriately applied the provisions of section 234A, 234B & 234C

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax available in Form 26AS of KVR Rail Infra Projects Pvt Ltd should have been allowed to the assessee company. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not appreciating the fact that the AO has inappropriately applied the provisions of section 234A, 234B & 234C

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

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

234C of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Joint Venture between M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd., executing infrastructure project for Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), Government of Madhya Pradesh for execution of Saleemanbad carrier canal (Bargi Right Bank Canal) of Bargi Diversion Project on Turnkey basis

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

234C of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Joint Venture between M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd., executing infrastructure project for Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), Government of Madhya Pradesh for execution of Saleemanbad carrier canal (Bargi Right Bank Canal) of Bargi Diversion Project on Turnkey basis