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

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

iii) to disallow expenditure amounting to Rs.2,69,26,757 relatable to issue of foreign currency convertible bonds. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT under section 263 of the I.T. Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT vide orders dated 04.01.2013 in ITA.No.749/Hyd/2012 upheld the initiation of proceedings under section

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

26,53,017\n85,36,56,501\n\n2023-24\n1,61,80,065\n1,12,87,744\n\nTotal\n171,80,16,158\n125,50,48,707\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment in the case of the assessee company and this office

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\nImproper many\nis covered w/1149(1)(b).\nIsame of motive of/5148\nis ayyun.\nDate: 6/10/23\n(SANJAY BAHADUR, IRS)\nDirector General of Income Tax (Inv).\nHyderabad.\n5.\nThus, it is clear that an identical sanction was granted\nby the DGIT (Inv), Hyderabad for all the A.Ys.\n6.\nAt the outset, we note

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

Section 148 is bad in law.\n8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A)\nis not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -.\n9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the\ntime of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nWe have considered the rival contentions as well as the\nrelevant

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\n(YOGESH KUMAR VERMA, IRS)\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),\nHyderabad.\nDate: 6/10/23\n(SANJAY BAHADUR, IRS)\nDirector General of Income Tax (Inv).\nHyderabad.\n5. Thus, it is clear that an identical sanction was granted by the DGIT (Inv), Hyderabad for all the A.Ys.\n6. At the outset, we note that

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

Section 148 is bad in law.\n8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -.\n9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nWe have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

TDS?\nAccordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the\nDepartment Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the\nprovision for educational facilities is being made by assessee\nas a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage\nAgreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms\nof Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said\nprovision is also accepted

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

section 149(1) of the\nAct, as existed at the relevant point of time and submitted that\nthe asset which include immovable property being land or\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans & advances,\ndeposits in the bank account. In support of his contention he has\nrelied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

26 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) deduction has to be claimed in the return filed u/s. 139(1). The provision only speaks of filing a return of income within the time limit and making of the claim in the return of income. Once a valid revised return is filed, it replaces the original return of income and hence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

26 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) deduction has to be claimed in the return filed u/s. 139(1). The provision only speaks of filing a return of income within the time limit and making of the claim in the return of income. Once a valid revised return is filed, it replaces the original return of income and hence

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

TDS?\nAccordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the\nDepartment Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the\nprovision for educational facilities is being made by assessee\nas a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage\nAgreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms\nof Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said\nprovision is also accepted

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,16,72,042/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 26

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,16,72,042/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 26

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,16,72,042/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 26

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.4,16,72,042/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 26