ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERAABAD vs. DEENABABU KONDUBHATLA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

TDS relating to Section 195. 3 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, during the subject year, sold two immovable properties, on which Long Term Capital Gain aggregating to Rs. 13,18,002/-, viz. (i). Property - I: Rs. 55,887/- and (ii). Property – II: Rs.12,62,115/- was disclosed in his return

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein the Court held- "Learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to the judgement of this Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

251 ITR 53 (Mad.) held that call charges received from telecom operators from firms and companies subscribing to cellular mobile services provided by them do not come within the definition of technical services u/s. 194J read with section 9(1)(vii) Expln. 2, as it a mere collection of Fee for use of standard facility provided to all those willing

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

251 ITR 53 (Mad.) held that call charges received from telecom operators from firms and companies subscribing to cellular mobile services provided by them do not come within the definition of technical services u/s. 194J read with section 9(1)(vii) Expln. 2, as it a mere collection of Fee for use of standard facility provided to all those willing

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

251 ITR 53 (Mad.) held that call charges received from telecom operators from firms and companies subscribing to cellular mobile services provided by them do not come within the definition of technical services u/s. 194J read with section 9(1)(vii) Expln. 2, as it a mere collection of Fee for use of standard facility provided to all those willing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

251(1) of the Act. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation @ 25% on ‘Film Software Library’ instead of 15% allowable on ‘Plant and Machinery’.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent