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:

32(1)(iia) of the Act, no corresponding amendment is made in section 32AC of the Act and therefore, the intention of the Legislature is clear that the benefit of section 32AC(1) is not available to a company engaged in the business of generation of power. To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier decision

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:

32(1)(iia) of the Act, no corresponding amendment is made in section 32AC of the Act and therefore, the intention of the Legislature is clear that the benefit of section 32AC(1) is not available to a company engaged in the business of generation of power. To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier decision

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:

32(1)(iia) of the Act, no corresponding amendment is made in section 32AC of the Act and therefore, the intention of the Legislature is clear that the benefit of section 32AC(1) is not available to a company engaged in the business of generation of power. To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier decision

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

32(1)(iia) of the Act, no corresponding amendment is made\nin section 32AC of the Act and therefore, the intention of the\nLegislature is clear that the benefit of section 32AC(1) is not\navailable to a company engaged in the business of generation of\npower. To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier\ndecision

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

32(1)(iia) of the Act, no corresponding amendment is made\nin section 32AC of the Act and therefore, the intention of the\nLegislature is clear that the benefit of section 32AC(1) is not\navailable to a company engaged in the business of generation of\npower. To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier\ndecision

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

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

32,95,577; and (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

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

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

32,586/- after taking into account the gross sales of Rs. 239,62,85,818/-" 22 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) vi. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating that there is no amendment to Sec.36(1)(va) and considering the as it stands, the employee's contribution

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

32,586/- after taking into account the gross sales of Rs. 239,62,85,818/-" 22 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) vi. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating that there is no amendment to Sec.36(1)(va) and considering the as it stands, the employee's contribution

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

32 of the\nassessment order and thereby, the assessee was entitled to\nclaim deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act only to the extent of\nRs.37,39,67,075/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.157,96,36,447/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment

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

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

32,928\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 is in\npossession of books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset

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

32,928\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee company and this office is in possession of books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

32 of the\nassessment order and thereby, the assessee was entitled to\nclaim deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act only to the extent of\nRs.37,39,67,075/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.157,96,36,447/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

32 of the\nassessment order and thereby, the assessee was entitled to\nclaim deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act only to the extent of\nRs.37,39,67,075/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.157,96,36,447/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1)(ii) has been dealt in detail by the CIT (Appeals) in his order dated 23-02-2013 relevant to the A Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. We fully agree with the detailed findings and the reasoning given by the CIT(Appeals) in his order allowing this ground of appeal of the assessee. For the sake of brevity

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

32 of the\nassessment order and thereby, the assessee was entitled to\nclaim deduction u/sec.80IA of the Act only to the extent of\nRs.37,39,67,075/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.157,96,36,447/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment