AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

244 assessee failed to establish Taxman 193 creditworthiness of donor and (SC) genuineness of transaction, addition made in terms of section 68 of gift amount was justified Sudhir Kumar Supreme 2016 (2016) 69 SLP dismissed against High Sharma (HUF) Court taxmann.com Court's ruling that where Vs. CIT 219 (SC)/(2016) assessee had failed to give list of 239 Taxman

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

TDS credit as per law. The above ground is allowed to that extent accordingly. The Ground nos. 6 & 7 are consequential to the grounds adjudicated above, therefore needs no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before

SURESH KUMAR REDDY KRISHNAPURAM,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the assessee.\n• In CIT v. Indo Airways (2012) 26 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement

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

TDS, which attracts disallowance\nu/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore,\nconsidering the overall scenario including relevant books of\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025.\n13\naccounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search observed that,\nthe profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during\nthe course

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

TDS provisions\nand the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any\nspecific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to\nprovisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of\njurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

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

TDS provisions\nand the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any\nspecific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to\nprovisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of\njurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

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

TDS provisions\nand the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any\nspecific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to\nprovisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of\njurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

TDS provisions\nand the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any\nspecific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to\nprovisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of\njurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

SURESH KUMAR REDDY KRISHNAPURAM,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

SURESH KUMAR REDDY KRISHNAPURAM,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

SURESH KUMAR REDDY KRISHNAPURAM,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

SKANDA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction