NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

TDS is deductible under section 194H of the Act on bank guarantee charges as there is no principal–agent relationship between the bank and the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the said judicial precedent, we hold that the payment made by the assessee towards performance bond guarantee and bank guarantee charges to the Bank are not in the nature of commission

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

270A of the Act and, therefore, the reasons explained\nby the assessee are factually not disputed because the\ndecision to file the appeal has been taken only after the\npenalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee\nhas explained the reasons for delay that only after the levy of\npenalty, the assessee has an imminent risk of facing

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. As certain common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.1501/Hyd/2025 for AY 2016-17, which arises from

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

270A and 271AA, without considering the fact that the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment is on account of difference of opinion. 5 Gainsight Software Private Limited The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal or produce further documents at any time before or at the time of the appeal

CONCENTRIX CATALYST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

TDS credit amounting to INR 6,360 appearing in the Form 26AS as per the\nOGE dated 07 February 2024 pursuant to the order of Hon'ble CIT(A).\n19. erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act in the impugned order.\n20. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

270A of the Act, the primary condition is to prove ‘mens rea’, i.e., guilty mind or an act of conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on part of Assessee, whereas the Appellant has disclosed all the information requested ITA No.785/Hyd/2024 6 for during the assessment proceedings as well as at the time of filing the Income tax return

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

270A and 271F will be initiated separately. The contentions of the ld. AR are that : 1) No satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and therefore, penalty order cannot be passed u/s 271B of the Act. 2) Assessee had filed Audit Report during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer had satisfied and hence, there

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS Credit of the transferor company to successor or transferee company even though the income of the transferor company is already considered by the successor company. 18.3 The Ld. AO erred in law and facts by not granting any TCS credit vis-à-vis INR 1,29,734/- as claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income

MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 270A under which the penalty proceedings are initiated in the appellant case and hence the penalty order passed by AO u/s 270A is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in not appreciating

MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 270A under which the penalty proceedings are initiated in the appellant case and hence the penalty order passed by AO u/s 270A is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in not appreciating

KARVY INSIGHTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 Karvey Insights Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karvy House, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafck7501C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.09.2024

TDS was deducted as professional charges. However, no details were provided for the remaining project cost of Rs.10,64,04,646/- out of a total of Rs.16,51,43,321/-. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 26/08/2022, but the assessee failed to respond. As a result, the amount of Rs.10,64,04,646/- was disallowed and taxed, leading

BHARGAVI MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

270A and 271(1)(b) for non-compliance and misreporting. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment interalia making addition of Rs.2,50,67,943/- towards disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dt.28.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the LD.CIT

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1401/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sheladia Associates Inc. Vs. Adit (International Secunderabad Taxation)-2 Pan : Aafcs7792F Hyderabad

270A of the Act. 7. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 3. Ground No.1 and 2 are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. Even the assessee has not brought anything in support of these grounds to show that the order passed by the AO in pursuance to the directions

KALBURGI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

270A of 3 the Act. Thereafter, final assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(4) read with section 144B of the Act dt.23.11.2011. 2.1. Being aggrieved by the order dt.23.11.2011, assessee company filed an application u/s 263 of the Act before the PCIT – 2, Hyderabad, seeking revision of the assessment order dt.23.11.2011 passed by the National Faceless Assessment