OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

TDS short credit. 4. In so far as the issue relating to the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act qua expenditure incurred in Corporate Social Responsibility ("CSR") is concerned, plea of the assessee is that the assessee donated/ contributed Rs. 3,79,83,500/- towards CSR during the financial year 2016-17 which was debited

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

TDS is compensatory in\nnature and falls under the category of revenue expenditure and\nshould be allowed as deduction under Section 37

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)

TDS under Section 194C of the Act. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the additions made towards disallowance of subcontract payments to Bathini Infra and Shankarapally under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Rs.5,47,454/- and Rs.4,13,765/-, respectively. 37

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)

TDS under Section 194C of the Act. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the additions made towards disallowance of subcontract payments to Bathini Infra and Shankarapally under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Rs.5,47,454/- and Rs.4,13,765/-, respectively. 37

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)

TDS under Section 194C of the Act. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the additions made towards disallowance of subcontract payments to Bathini Infra and Shankarapally under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Rs.5,47,454/- and Rs.4,13,765/-, respectively. 37

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS be allowed as an expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. 14. On the other hand

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

TDS”). The Ld. AR contended that such interest is compensatory Page 3 of 20 ITA No 670 of 2023 Nippon Koei Co Ltd in nature and not penal, and therefore allowable as a business expenditure under section 37

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

TDS to an extent of Rs. 9,70.814/- 15. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234B of Rs. 31,16.646/- 16. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234C of Rs. 37,20,130/-. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter

TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

37 of the Act stating that mere enlargement of the amount of TDS with the inclusion of interest, does not take away its character as being TDS to be allowed under section

KALBURGI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for the purposes of business in order to merit deduction. Pursuant to public protest, the word "necessarily" was omitted from the section. 21. The position emerging from the above decisions is that it is not necessary for the assessee to show that any legitimate expenditure incurred

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS on said payments, but, not on genuineness of expenditure. Therefore, from the above, it is undisputedly clear that, the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned PCIT on three issues is not based on the finding of the PCIT that, the Assessing Officer has not carried-out 18 ITA.No.670/Hyd./2025 the relevant issues in light of provisions

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in Ocimum Bio Solutions India Ltd. (supra), wherein at para no.3 of the order, the Tribunal has held as under : “ 3. Learned departmental representative’s vehement contention during the course of hearing is that both the lower authorities have rightly disallowed 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

37 of the Act stating that mere enlargement of the amount of TDS with the inclusion of interest, does not take away its character as being TDS to be allowed under section

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

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under Section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

DATAFORMIX ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dataformix Enterprise V Ito,Ward-17(1) Solutions Private Limited S. Signature Towers 1-33-47, Rtc Colony, Kondapur Gunrock, Tirumalgiri Hyderabad-500 004 Secunderabad-500 0074

section 37 of the act. 9. In the present case, though the nature of expenditure are primarily in the nature of salary however that salary expenses were laid by the assessee for the purposes of developing a capital asset in the form of the software for its own purposes . Therefore the expenditure in question was capital in nature

RAMAKRISHNA INDUSTRIES ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) of the service tax paid by the assessee and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of TDS

CHELIKAMMUNICATIONS,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), TIRUPATI., TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS”) of Rs.22,37,265/- as per the provisions of section 194J of the Act. However, the assessee deposited an amount