SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The

TDS related disallowances; and (vii) prior year adjustments. After necessary verifications, the AO accepted the assessee's explanation on the issues other than the TP adjustment that was suggested by the TPO. 6. The AO thereafter issued a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act, dated 26/09/2023, wherein, after incorporating the TP adjustments, he proposed to assess

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

TDS on ESOP is an international transaction with its AE which was not at arm's length. 4:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the international transactions relating to recovery of expenses were at arm's length and hence no adjustment in respect thereof was called

EPAM SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Epam Systems India The Dcit & The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081 Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Shreyas Sardesai राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

TDS on ESOP is an international transaction with its AE which was not at arm's length. 4:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the international transactions relating to recovery of expenses were at arm's length and hence no adjustment in respect thereof was called

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

6% of the gross receipts of the company.” Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 16. From the grounds raised by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal while challenging the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) under section 250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, no grounds pertaining

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

6% of the gross receipts of the company.” Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 16. From the grounds raised by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal while challenging the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) under section 250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, no grounds pertaining

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

6% of the gross receipts of the company.” Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 16. From the grounds raised by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal while challenging the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) under section 250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, no grounds pertaining

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

250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify large refund claims and contract receipts or fees. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act on 5 ITA.No.670/Hyd./2025 various dates and called-upon the assessee to file various evidences. In response, the assessee

AKHILESH SOOD,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

TDS is to be deducted, hence he applied the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Learned Assessing Officer was also of the view that the debit to the blasting material is not properly explained. Regarding labour charges and earth moving machine expenditure, learned Assessing Officer did not accept the contentions of assessee and assessment was completed under

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

250 dated 31.05.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant 2. The Lid. CTT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. TDS CPC erred in passing the orders u/s 2004, 206CB and u/s 154 of the Act by charging late fee u/s 234E, calculating

14 REELS VENKATBOYANAPALLI JV,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018 14 Reels The Dcit, Central Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 033. Pin – 500 004. Pan Aaaaz2224L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा /Assessee By : Mrs. K Prabhabati, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Hyderabad- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 08.02.2025 & 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018, Respectively.

TDS of Rs.42,525. 4 ITA.Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years for want of prosecution. Thus

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

250 (SC)as well as the judgment in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Oil Industries Development Board (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2755/2019 dated 8/2/2019 and submitted that section 14A can only be triggered if the assessee seeks to claim expenditure incurred against the income which does not form part of the total income. He has further submitted

BLUOAK AGRO COMMODITIES LIMITED,MEDAK vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 277/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bluoak Agro Income Tax Officer, Commodities Limited, Vs. Ward-1(3), Sadasivpet, Hyderabad Medak District [Pan No. Aaaco7864M]

TDS on the rent paid towards godowns. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, added the sums of Rs. 87,490/-, Rs. 23 lakhs and Rs. 1,25,405/- respectively. Apart from the same, learned Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards ‘unexplained credits’ on account of the other current liabilities. 4. Aggrieved by such an action

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

250 dated 31.05.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant 2. The Lid. CTT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. TDS CPC erred in passing the orders u/s 2004, 206CB and u/s 154 of the Act by charging late fee u/s 234E, calculating

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized