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:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

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:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

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:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

35 taxmann.com 384/216 Taxman 471 (Mag.)/[2015] 372 ITR 0619 (Bom) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchase. The assessee had filed letter of confirmation of seven suppliers, copies of bank statement reflecting the entries of payment through account payee cheques to suppliers, copies of invoices for purchase and detail of stock inventory. The sales

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

35 taxmann.com 384/216 Taxman 471 (Mag.)/[2015] 372 ITR 0619 (Bom) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchase. The assessee had filed letter of confirmation of seven suppliers, copies of bank statement reflecting the entries of payment through account payee cheques to suppliers, copies of invoices for purchase and detail of stock inventory. The sales

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

35%\nunder the proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.\nrestrict\n21. The next issue came for our consideration is deduction\nclaimed u/s 32AC and 32AD. The bare reading of the\nprovisions reproduced herein above make it abundantly clear\nthat the language used in Section 32AC and 32AD are\nparametria similar to the language used in Proviso

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

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

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

ii) to disallow gratuity of Rs.1,32,95,577; 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

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

35%\nunder the proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.\nrestrict\n21. The next issue came for our consideration is deduction\nclaimed u/s 32AC and 32AD. The bare reading of the\nprovisions reproduced herein above make it abundantly clear\nthat the language used in Section 32AC and 32AD are\nparametria similar to the language used in Proviso

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

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

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj\nITI

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

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

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj\nITI

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

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj

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

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

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj\nITI

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), 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

TDS details show that the assessee is the subcontractor ii. Unsecured Loans include mobilization advances and these are all work contract receipts. iii. Clause 10(a) of the Tax Audit report describes the nature of the business of the assessee as a 'Civil Contractor' iv. In the P&L account, 'Revenue from Operations' reflects 'Work Contract Receipts'. 18. He submitted

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

TDS details show that the assessee is the subcontractor ii. Unsecured Loans include mobilization advances and these are all work contract receipts. iii. Clause 10(a) of the Tax Audit report describes the nature of the business of the assessee as a 'Civil Contractor' iv. In the P&L account, 'Revenue from Operations' reflects 'Work Contract Receipts'. 18. He submitted

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

35 noted in the assessment order at pages 32 and 33\ninvolving a sum of Rs.157,96,36,447/- out of the total claim\nof Rs.195,36,03,522/- are not entitled for deduction\nu/sec.80IA of the Act since the Department has filed an\nappeal before the Hon'ble High Court Andhra Pradesh in the\ncase of Transtroy India Limited

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

ii) from the date of the sale of such specified security or sweat equity share by the assessee; or\n(iii) from the date of the assessee ceasing to be the employee of the employer who allotted or transferred him\nsuch specified security or sweat equity share, whichever is the earliest).\n\"Explanation.-For the removal of doubts