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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/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 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Hyderabad Singareni Collieries Company Limited Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राजस्व द्वारा / 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:

40A(9) of the IT Act are very clear in providing that any payment or contribution made by an employer on behalf of the employees to any fund, trust, society, association or person etc. would not be an allowable expenses except the payment made for expenses provided for under section 36(1)(iv) and (v). Admittedly the payments

THOTA RAMAIAH L/R T VASUNDHARA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS Certificates etc. Ld. AR further submitted that section 40A(3) of the Act is applicable only to those expenditures which were incurred by the assessee with an intention to evade the tax and not applicable to genuine business payments made in the regular course of business. He relied on the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE PRASAD JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

TDS as mentioned in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act r.w.s. first Proviso of Section 201(1) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has also held that in case the payee referred to in the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act and had taken into account such return of income, then the assessee (Payee) shall

SHASHIKALA RAM KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

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

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 2382/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Shashikala Ram Kumar, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax, [PAN No. AGPPR1448G] Circle-4(1), Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा / Assessee by: Shri A. Srinivas, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

40A(2)(b) of the Act without examining the nature and scope of the work carried out by the proprietorship firm. It was therefore pleaded that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 23. We have heard the rival submissions

ITO, WARD-6(2),, HYDERABAD vs. MS AGARWAL FOUNDRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,, SECUNDERABAD

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. The ld. DR besides relying on the order of the AO submitted that the assessee company in support of its claim of expenditure produced freight bills and ledger copies are self-made, therefore, the genuineness of the expenditure is doubted

ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. M/S M S AGARWAL FOUNDRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. The ld. DR besides relying on the order of the AO submitted that the assessee company in support of its claim of expenditure produced freight bills and ledger copies are self-made, therefore, the genuineness of the expenditure is doubted

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

B" NEW DELHI IN ITA No.2615/DEL/2022. FACTS: Assessee offered the cash seized from locker as income but did not file in the ROT filed in response to Sec 153A since SAT was not paid. Assessee requested AO to adjust SAT liability from seized amount. Held that Assessing Officer should have adjusted the tax liability relating to disclosed income declared