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)

24,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 56. In the result

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS] which is also obvious from the Form 26AS and the same is not allowable deduction under section 36/37 and the same needs to be disallowed. However, the same was not done. The PCIT further noted that, the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.65,24

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

TDS, CPC) for various quarters, we find that the said aspect had been looked into by the CIT(A) at Para No.6.3.1 of his order. The CIT(A) had filed a breakup of the disputed demand, which was comprised of, viz., (i) late fee under section 234E: Rs.2,41,340/-; (ii) interest under section 201(1A): Rs.48

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

24. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that since the assessee failed to give the bifurcation of interest to be paid to each member and without deducting tax attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and the AO has properly disallowed the interest paid to members. 25. The ld. AR on the other hand, relied on the order

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

TDS credits. Hence, the addition of Rs. 92,069/-is sustained. 5.4. The appellant has raised several grounds 5.4. The against the addition of Unexplained Investment u/s 69B at Rs.19,54,348/- The AO made an addition of Rs. 19,54,348/- as unexplained time deposits since no source was explained during the assessment proceedings. The appellant contends that these

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS returns. The question which arises is whether in the abovesaid scenario, can the provisions of section 273B of the Act can be applied in order to decide the issue of levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 24

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS returns. The question which arises is whether in the abovesaid scenario, can the provisions of section 273B of the Act can be applied in order to decide the issue of levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 24

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS returns. The question which arises is whether in the abovesaid scenario, can the provisions of section 273B of the Act can be applied in order to decide the issue of levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 24

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

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income

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

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of\nthe Act.\n15. The Ld. AO legally erred in disallowing interest paid\non TDS