APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of ITA No.2271, 2272, 2282 & 2283/Hyd/2025 APMDC SCCL Suliyari Coal Company Limited vs. DCIT the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was issued and served upon the assessee company. 27. As the assessee company had neither

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of ITA No.2271, 2272, 2282 & 2283/Hyd/2025 APMDC SCCL Suliyari Coal Company Limited vs. DCIT the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was issued and served upon the assessee company. 27. As the assessee company had neither

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of ITA No.2271, 2272, 2282 & 2283/Hyd/2025 APMDC SCCL Suliyari Coal Company Limited vs. DCIT the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was issued and served upon the assessee company. 27. As the assessee company had neither

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of ITA No.2271, 2272, 2282 & 2283/Hyd/2025 APMDC SCCL Suliyari Coal Company Limited vs. DCIT the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was issued and served upon the assessee company. 27. As the assessee company had neither

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS) under section 194A of the Act, but had not filed its return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of ITA No.2271, 2272, 2282 & 2283/Hyd/2025 APMDC SCCL Suliyari Coal Company Limited vs. DCIT the Act, dated 29/03/2021 was issued and served upon the assessee company. 27. As the assessee company had neither

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2011-12 Spr Infrastructure India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Circle 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccd4913G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar 09.07.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2024

TDS credit of Rs. 75,55,306/- which is available in Form 26AS while making the assessment.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee company is engaged in execution of infrastructure projects and government contracts. The assessee company had not filed its return of income for A.Y .2011-12 despite having contract receipts to the tune

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

249(4)(a), ignoring the fact that the assessee had not paid the tax due on the income returned by it.\n2. Alternatively and without prejudice to ground no.1, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.3,89,56,740/-.\n3. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2014 dated

KREATIVE HOSTS ATRIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kreative Hosts Atria Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P. Murali & Co., C,A, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aadck 2362 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad Dated 28.5.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 .

Section 249(3) in the context of condonation of delay should be a liberal construction so as to give substantial justice but only when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the party concerned. In the present case in hand, the assessee is only stating that the order of the ld CIT(A) was misplaced

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

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

249 as against the eligible TDS credit of INR 3,08,07,638 available to the Appellant, thereby resulting in short grant of credit of 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

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

249 as against the eligible TDS credit of INR 3,08,07,638 available to the Appellant, thereby resulting in short grant of credit of 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

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 :

249,590/- and addition of Rs.5,14,80,879/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) had held at pages 58 to 65 as under : The facts of the case are that 11 companies amalgamated with the appellant vide the order of High Court dated 10.10.2013 w.e.f 01.04.2011. The amalgamating companies had identical shareholders and shareholding