SRI LAKSHMI ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

36(1)(va) of the Act on account of employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI. He submitted that the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed by the Page 3 of 10 ITA No 1209 of 2025 Sri Lakshmi Road Transport Co CPC on 16.10.2019, which was a period when the issue regarding allowability of employees’ contribution

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

TDS and further disallowance of EPF & ESI under Section 36(1)(va) for Rs. 3,66,095/-, addition towards disallowance

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

section 254(1) of the 1961 Act,), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment.” 30.1 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity

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

section 254(1) of the 1961 Act,), the Tribunal was not authorized to take back the benefit granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has no power to enhance the assessment.” 30.1 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

TDS applicable as per law in the name of the appellant. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that although the JV/Consortium is a separate entity for the purpose of assessment, but all other activities, 16 including designing, development, and maintenance of the project are undertaken by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once the assessee

WISSEN TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1082/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Wissen Technology Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Bangalore Circle-17(2) [Pan : Aabcw5249H] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 11/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Siliguri, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant’S Case, The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Of I.T.Act Passed By Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Siliguri, In Adjudicating The Appeal Filed Against Intimation U/S 143(1) Of I.T.Act Is Not Correct Both On The Facts & In The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Appellant’S

TDS, is not an allowable expenditure. 4. In the facts and circumstances of appellants case, the disallowance made of Rs.2,48,185/- u/s 36(1)(va) while passing intimation u/s 143(1) of I.T.Act, is duly suffered tax while passing the order under section

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) has deleted the said addition by following various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts wherein it was held that if the assessee has made the payment on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1), then the same

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement

CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

TDS from the payment made towards legal and professional fee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), has considered the applicability of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and held that the second proviso to section

HARSHINI EPC PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS on satisfying with the conditions as contained in Section 199 of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing consultancy services. Assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 admitting taxable income of Rs.37,68,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

VIJAI ELECTRICALS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS of Rs. 78,26,28,873/-, which is not pressed by the ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing, therefore this ground is dismissed as not pressed. 3. As regards the addition towards PF & ESI, which is similar in both the appeals under consideration, the AO made the addition relating to employees contribution

VIJAI ELECTRICALS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS of Rs. 78,26,28,873/-, which is not pressed by the ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing, therefore this ground is dismissed as not pressed. 3. As regards the addition towards PF & ESI, which is similar in both the appeals under consideration, the AO made the addition relating to employees contribution

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

VA becomes academic as the relief has already been granted on ground no. 2(i) and 2(ii) therefore there is no need of adjudication to ground no. 2 (iii) accordingly. Further, the ground no. 3(i) and 3(ii) also becomes academic and therefore needs no adjudication in view of the relief already granted. Therefore, the addition made

NEERUS ENSEMBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid before the due date of filing return of income. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not fairly appreciating the legal position considering that the Ld. A.O. ought to have considered the fact that all the payments of PF and ESI fund of employees

NEERUS ENSEMBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid before the due date of filing return of income. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not fairly appreciating the legal position considering that the Ld. A.O. ought to have considered the fact that all the payments of PF and ESI fund of employees

POWER MECH INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

36(1)(va) r.w.s.\n2(24)(x) of the Act the claim of the assessee company for deduction\nof the delayed deposit of the employee share of contribution\ntowards ESI/PF amounting to Rs.1,06,276/-. The A.O. vide his\norder u/s 147 of the Act dt.26.09.2023 after making the aforesaid\nadditions/disallowances determined the income of the assessee\ncompany at Rs.4

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid within due date of filing return of income. 10.4. The Ld. A.O ought to consider the fact that all the payments of Provident fund of employees and employer share are paid on or before due date of filing return of income. 11. The appellant