AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

275 (1)(a) of the Act. There is hardly any dispute that we are dealing with penalty provision in a fiscal statute herein which deserves to be put to strict interpretation only in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court recent landmark judgment in Commnr. Of Customs vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

275 (1)(a) of the Act. There is hardly any dispute that we are dealing with penalty provision in a fiscal statute herein which deserves to be put to strict interpretation only in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court recent landmark judgment in Commnr. Of Customs vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

275 (1)(a) of the Act. There is hardly any dispute that we are dealing with penalty provision in a fiscal statute herein which deserves to be put to strict interpretation only in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court recent landmark judgment in Commnr. Of Customs vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

section 234E of the Act by the ITO (TDS), CPC, and upheld the same. 9. Apropos the challenge by the assessee company to the demand that was raised by the ITO (TDS), CPC, viz., (i) short payment of tax: Rs.17,005/-; and (ii) short deduction of tax: Rs.1,22,275

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

section 234E of the Act by the ITO (TDS), CPC, and upheld the same. 9. Apropos the challenge by the assessee company to the demand that was raised by the ITO (TDS), CPC, viz., (i) short payment of tax: Rs.17,005/-; and (ii) short deduction of tax: Rs.1,22,275

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE PRASAD JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

section. iii. The following details are noted from the copies of the returns of income and Form 26AS of the payees: 7 Name of the As per TDS schedule of the As per Form 26AS of the payee Return of income filed by the Recipient for AY 2019-20 recipient for AY 2019-20 Income TDS credit Total amount Total

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 801A (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 801A (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 80IA (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

275 ITR (Statute) 70. In the said circular, issued in connection with 80IA (4) of the Act, it is clarified that the benefit of deduction is available to an enterprise which is in the business of undertaking the projects either by way of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT). 7.10 Further, one more circular

NEERAJ KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ITO v. Volkart Brothers and Others, 82 ITR 50 (S.C.) with regard to mistake apparent from record that qualities for an action

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL vs. M/S. VIJAYA SREE CONSTRUCTIONS, WARANGAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Vijaya Sree Income Tax, Circle -1 Constructins, Warangal Warangal Pan:Aabfv3579J (Appellant) (Respondent)

275 to Mr.Rami Reddy and Mr. Sanjeeva Reddy as “Metal Transport Charges”. Observing that the assessee had an agreement with a single party for transportation of goods, the AO deemed it that the assessee has an agreement of contract and therefore, it was required to deduct tax at source u/s 194C of the Act. Since the assessee has not made

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

275/- the Ld. AO treated the same as unaccounted sales and brought to tax. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee reconciled the deference to the extent of Rs. 22,00,012/-. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) granted relief to that extent and sustained the balanced amount of Rs. 75,285/-. Since the assessee could not reconcile the difference amount

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

275/- the Ld. AO treated the same as unaccounted sales and brought to tax. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee reconciled the deference to the extent of Rs. 22,00,012/-. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) granted relief to that extent and sustained the balanced amount of Rs. 75,285/-. Since the assessee could not reconcile the difference amount

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

275/- the Ld. AO treated the same as unaccounted sales and brought to tax. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee reconciled the deference to the extent of Rs. 22,00,012/-. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) granted relief to that extent and sustained the balanced amount of Rs. 75,285/-. Since the assessee could not reconcile the difference amount

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

275/- the Ld. AO treated the same as unaccounted sales and brought to tax. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee reconciled the deference to the extent of Rs. 22,00,012/-. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) granted relief to that extent and sustained the balanced amount of Rs. 75,285/-. Since the assessee could not reconcile the difference amount

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

275/- the Ld. AO treated the same as unaccounted sales and brought to tax. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee reconciled the deference to the extent of Rs. 22,00,012/-. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) granted relief to that extent and sustained the balanced amount of Rs. 75,285/-. Since the assessee could not reconcile the difference amount

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

275/- the Ld. AO treated the same as unaccounted sales and brought to tax. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee reconciled the deference to the extent of Rs. 22,00,012/-. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) granted relief to that extent and sustained the balanced amount of Rs. 75,285/-. Since the assessee could not reconcile the difference amount

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

275/- the Ld. AO treated the same as unaccounted sales and brought to tax. Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee reconciled the deference to the extent of Rs. 22,00,012/-. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) granted relief to that extent and sustained the balanced amount of Rs. 75,285/-. Since the assessee could not reconcile the difference amount