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

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

TDS credits under sections 194A and 194C aggregating over Rs. 3.2 crores and 8 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO time deposits of Rs. 19.54 lakhs were reflected in the 26AS statement, but remained unaccounted. The information clearly constitutes "tangible material" justifying reopening as held in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD vs. VISION VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

section 154 of the Act and had allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us . 9. In this case the income tax officer of the revenue had filed the note on tax effect, whereby the tax effect in the present appeal was 36,63,999/- only

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

TDS. She further observed that the following points were not considered by the A.O. "(i) A perusal of profit and loss account revealed that the assessee has claimed an amount of Rs. 8,95,97,600/- as ‘loss on sale of shares'. This loss should be treated as ‘loss from capital gains', as the assessee is in the business

KASUSALYA SHELTERS 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

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

KASUSALYA SHELTERS 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

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD 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

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD 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

264 ITR 566 (SC). Therefore, in our considered opinion, reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is available in the assessment order, is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, before initiating the proceedings under Section

VAGDEVI REDDY TANDUR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer”) as he received intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein demand of Rs.39,200/- was raised towards late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. Assessee disputing the above demand filed the present appeal. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order dt.15.02.2020 passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Years: 2013-14 Andhra Pradesh Power Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Finance Corporation Ltd., Ward – 1(2), Hyderabad. Vijayawada. Pan – Aadca0857D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri K. Mohan Reddy Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2019 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

TDS deducted on these payments. The assessee submitted details of tax deducted at source. It was seen that the assessee has deducted tax at source for gross amount of Rs.24,06,354/- only. Further, tax was not deducted on the remaining amount of Rs.1,31,22,264/-. The AO asked the assessee to show cause as to why the above

INTEGRATED GAS CONTROLS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

264/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences, in support of large expenses debited to Profit & Loss account. In response, the assessee, vide letter dated 19.02.2021 filed relevant details including bills and vouchers in support of various expenditure debited to Profit & Loss account

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

264 before the CIT and made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). The CIT, therefore rejected the revision application holding that since assessee had not made a claim under section 80IB(10) in the return of income, by virtue of section 80IA(5), the claim could not be granted. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition