ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEW CLUB, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS statement under section 194C that the assessee had received contract receipts of Rs.79,725/- during the relevant assessment year, which, in the absence of any documentary evidence, were treated as income from contract business and added to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO Page 3 of 12 New Club thereafter completed the assessment under section

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation due to non-submission of bills in support of additions of fixed assets during the year under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation due to non-submission of bills in support of additions of fixed assets during the year under

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation due to non-submission of bills in support of additions of fixed assets during the year under

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

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

TDS has not been deducted for the aforesaid payment for the subject assessment year without considering the fact that CWIP was not claimed as deductible expense while computing the taxable income. 3.2.14. In this regard, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non deduction of tax at source on capitalized

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. She further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting credit for TDS on mobilization advance without considering the provisions of Section

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. She further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting credit for TDS on mobilization advance without considering the provisions of Section

DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. / Ita No. Appellant Respondent Nuvama Wealth & Investment Limited, Acit, (Formerly Known As Circle-17(1), 527/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Edelweiss Broking Hyderabad Limited) Mumbai [Pan: Aabce9421H] Edelweiss Broking Dcit, Limited, Circle-8(1), 528/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan: Aabce9421H] निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Ravikanth S. Pathak, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 12/04/2023

TDS credit by the learned Assessing Officer, whereas Revenue challenged the finding of the learned CIT(A) that the ESOP expenditure is not capital in nature difference between the market price of the shares as on the date of exercise of ESOP option by the employee and the grant price thereof, as perquisite in the hands of the employee form

EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. / Ita No. Appellant Respondent Nuvama Wealth & Investment Limited, Acit, (Formerly Known As Circle-17(1), 527/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Edelweiss Broking Hyderabad Limited) Mumbai [Pan: Aabce9421H] Edelweiss Broking Dcit, Limited, Circle-8(1), 528/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan: Aabce9421H] निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Ravikanth S. Pathak, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 12/04/2023

TDS credit by the learned Assessing Officer, whereas Revenue challenged the finding of the learned CIT(A) that the ESOP expenditure is not capital in nature difference between the market price of the shares as on the date of exercise of ESOP option by the employee and the grant price thereof, as perquisite in the hands of the employee form

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. MAKAM RADHAKRISHNA RAMMOHAN, MADANAPALLE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS on bonus paid under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Rs. 24,00,000/- on account of bogus gift received. 3. Aggrieved by such an action of the Learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), filed elaborate written submissions and necessary supporting documentary evidences under Rule 46A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

46A of the Income Tax Rules. 4. Any other grounds that may arise during the hearing will be submitted before Hon’ble ITAT with kind permission.” 2. Also, the revenue has raised an additional grounds of appeal, as under: “Notice u/s 148 issued on 29/07/2022, in respect of initial notice under section 148, dated 28/06/2021, and reply on 01/06/2022

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

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

In the result, Ground Nos

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

KONATHAM KOTIREDDY,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, to admit additional\nevidence demonstrating remittances to M/s. Anika Bajaj and\nthe same are debited to the appellant's bank statements. The\nrefusal to consider such evidence has resulted in gross\nmiscarriage of justice.\n7. That the assessment and the appellate order stand vitiated\nas the Assessing Officer travelled beyond the scope