DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

Section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 07.07.2009 declaring an income of Rs.2,01,42,190/-. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the appellant firm. Subsequently, Assessing Officer [completed the assessment

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

249 (MP) (cited supra), after considering the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee therein in connection with the execution of a mortgage deed to secure a loan was revenue expenditure as there was no regulation regarding the application of capital subsidy to any specific purpose. 6. In the case

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), 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

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

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

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

TDS related to the disputed Assessment Year while computing the demand amount and upheld the impugned Tax demand of Rs 6,80,57,929 8. The learned CIT(A) erred by not appreciating the evidence provided during the process of filing Appeal. 3 Pinki Fresh Foods Limited. 9. For the above reasons, and for any additional reasons that

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to provide clarification/ file evidences required and take necessary action with respect to the deficiency letters issued. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant had a reasonable and sufficient cause for not responding to the deficiency

GAUTHAM KUMAR SUNKATA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.742/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Gautam Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Sunkata, Ward 4(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Cfwps7723F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

TDS provisions. Though the assessee submitted its explanation, the Assessing Officer rejected reply of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to deduct the Tax at source on commission paid to Amazon, Flipkart and Snapdeal as well as expense on stitching charges. Keeping in view of the provisions of section and submissions of the assessee with document evidences