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

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

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

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

TDS),\nCPC, Ghaziabad, considering the TDS/TCS statements passed orders under\nsection(s) 200A/206CB r.w.s 154 r.w.s 200A for the respective quarters,\nwherein demands under section 201(1A), 234E and 220(2) were raised, as\nunder:\nForm No.\nQuarter\nDate of Date of\nfiling of\nfiling of\nquarterly rectification\nreturn\nOrder u/s.\nby CPC\nDate of 234E 201(1A) 220(2

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS on subcontract works. The A.O. disallowed Rs. 2,91,31,153/- @ 30% of the expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment to Bathini Infra of Rs. 5,47,454/-, Rs.4,13,765/- incurred towards subcontract payment to Shankarapally, Rs. 2,76,00,000/- incurred towards subcontractor works

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS on subcontract works. The A.O. disallowed Rs. 2,91,31,153/- @ 30% of the expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment to Bathini Infra of Rs. 5,47,454/-, Rs.4,13,765/- incurred towards subcontract payment to Shankarapally, Rs. 2,76,00,000/- incurred towards subcontractor works

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS on subcontract works. The A.O. disallowed Rs. 2,91,31,153/- @ 30% of the expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment to Bathini Infra of Rs. 5,47,454/-, Rs.4,13,765/- incurred towards subcontract payment to Shankarapally, Rs. 2,76,00,000/- incurred towards subcontractor works

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

32(ii) of the Act in respect of the above programs/rights. As such, the Ld DR's argument on the applicability of the AS-26 to the TV Programs and Film rights is not supported by any precedents and therefore, the arguments raised by the Revenue are not allowed. Thus, considering the covered nature of the issue as well

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS), i.e., in the violation of the provisions of section 195(1) of the Act which attracted the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; and (ii) and though the assessee company had during the subject year carried out international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) of Rs.23,97,35,320/-, but the AO in the course

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Country Club Hospitality & Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacc 8276 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2022

2,32,16,784/- as TDS payable totaling to Rs.2,32,16,784/- on the basis of information from DDIT, Calcutta & Hyderabad. According to the AO, the remittances of PF, ESI and TDS, into Government account beyond due date of filing of return of income is not allowable expenditure under the provisions of section

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:

32 ITA.No.625/Hyd./2025 36.(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect with therein, in computing the income referred to in section of the matters dealt 28-- (i) to (vi) xxxx xxxx xxxx (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any debt, or part thereof, which is established

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9 of the Act. The said latter provision defines royalty as follows : “ Section 9(1)(vi) - Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9 of the Act. The said latter provision defines royalty as follows : “ Section 9(1)(vi) - Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9 of the Act. The said latter provision defines royalty as follows : “ Section 9(1)(vi) - Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9 of the Act. The said latter provision defines royalty as follows : “ Section 9(1)(vi) - Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9 of the Act. The said latter provision defines royalty as follows : “ Section 9(1)(vi) - Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including