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

TDS though it has made payments to various parties other than landlords / claimants partly through its account and partly directly from DLF. Similarly, Assessing Officer made various disallowance / additions listed at page 21 of the assessment order and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2009. 9. Feeling aggrieved with the assessment order dt.29.12.2009, assessee filed appeal

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

249(3) of the Act.” 4. Since, this is a legal ground raised by the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case NTPC vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383, we hereby admit the ground raised by the assessee. 5. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

249(3) of the Act.” 4. Since, this is a legal ground raised by the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case NTPC vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383, we hereby admit the ground raised by the assessee. 5. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS made\n(3)\nTDS remitted\n(4)\nDate\nremittance\n(5)\nof\n\n27. Details of contract/sub-contracts taken/given during the year and copies of\nagreements relating to such contracts.\n28. Please furnish names and complete mailing address of the parties to whom sub\ncontracts were awarded, details of work cost, transportation cost and labor charges\nwere paid.\n29. Details

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

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

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

3 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad 4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section

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

3 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad 4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section

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

3 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad 4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section