AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

TDS) under Section 194C of the Act of Rs.\n1,36,78,178/- on the contract payments of only Rs.\n82,64,73,583/-. The Pr. CIT, based on the aforesaid facts, held a\nfirm conviction that as the “Faceless Assessing Officer” (for short,\n“FAO”) had, while framing the assessment not verified the reason\nfor non-deduction

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

TDS under section 194C of the Act. Although, the Assessing Officer has made 10% ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure debited under the Head “Rents/JCB/Tipper/ Crane”, but, in our considered view, the said disallowance was made on the basis of directions of the learned PCIT in the order passed under section 263

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES 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.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

TDS, without appreciating fact that, the payments are not taxable in India under the provisions of respective tax treaties. 7.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that, by applying most favoured nation clause as contained in India Netherlands tax treaty and by accessing India-Finland

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES 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.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

TDS, without appreciating fact that, the payments are not taxable in India under the provisions of respective tax treaties. 7.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that, by applying most favoured nation clause as contained in India Netherlands tax treaty and by accessing India-Finland

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

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

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

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

TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be given its natural meaning and going by strict interpretation the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to expenditure which is payable

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

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

TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be given its natural meaning and going by strict interpretation the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to expenditure which is payable

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

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

TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be given its natural meaning and going by strict interpretation the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only to expenditure which is payable

BBR PROJECTS LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) wherein the order passed by Assessing Officer on 24.12.2019 was set aside. 2 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by the Ld.Pr. Commissioner of Income

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

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

263 of the I.T Act, 1961 and the assessing officer is directed to examine the above discrepancies and assess the correct income by redoing the assessment afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessment order dated 29 03 2016 stands revised accordingly”. 18. Thus,, the order of the Assessing Officer was set aside/revised

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 263 of the Act was passed in assessee's case on 13.03.2020 by the learned PCIT and set aside the order of the A.O. to verify the issues discussed in 263 proceedings like the claim of interest on TDS

HRITIK EXIM,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Hritik Exim Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1) C/O P.Murali & Co. 5Th Floor, It Towers Chartered Accountants Ac Guards 6-3-655/2/3 Hyderabad-500 004 Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082

TDS, the same has been accounted for and therefore, the ld.PCIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

section 263 of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Honorable Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated the fact that, the claim of bad debts are allowable as the amount of Rs.141,66,01,735/-, is taken into account in computing the income of the Appellant of the previous years, under the facts and circumstances

UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED (UNIQUE RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PVT LTD NOW MERGED WITH UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-1 CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. United Rail Road Vs. Dy. C.I.T Consultants (P) Ltd., Central Circle 1(3) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacu8136E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A Appeared For Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.3.2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit (Central)- Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Providing Consultancy Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 29.9.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,29,74,860/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass In The Limited Scrutiny To Verify “Large Other Expenses Claimed In The Profit & Loss A/C & Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report &

section 199, it was submitted that once the TDS was deducted, a credit to the same has to be given to the assessee irrespective of the year to which it relates. Relying on various decisions, it was argued that the initiation of 263

MECH ENGINEERS AND ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 263 revision orders in issue that on account of the assessee having not deducted TDS, audit fee and difference

MECH ENGINEERS AND ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 263 revision orders in issue that on account of the assessee having not deducted TDS, audit fee and difference