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)

50,000/- and the same has been deposited into the Government account. In respect of interest on TDS, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, it is not an item to be disallowed under Section

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), and other similar payments are allowable expenditures under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and are compensatory in nature and he has drawn our attention to section 50

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

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

50,876/- in respect of TDS deducted on mobilization advance on the ground 16 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture that, the income relatable to the TDS claim of the assessee has not been offered to tax for the year under consideration. 15. Aggrieved by the said intimation passed under Section

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

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

50,876/- in respect of TDS deducted on mobilization advance on the ground 16 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture that, the income relatable to the TDS claim of the assessee has not been offered to tax for the year under consideration. 15. Aggrieved by the said intimation passed under Section

VAZHRAA NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. I.T.O. CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS u/s.201(1A) of the Act. The same are not relevant to the issues pressed before us. 5.2 However, regarding the payment of other interest, the Ld. AR has relied on the decision of co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Analogics Tech India Limited Vs. DCIT (supra), wherein it has been held as under : “ 21. We have

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

50% of Rs.88,25,786/-, contending that no evidence of TDS has been produced. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that, as per the provision of section

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

50% of Rs.88,25,786/-, contending that no evidence of TDS has been produced. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that, as per the provision of section

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

50% of Rs.88,25,786/-, contending that no evidence of TDS has been produced. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that, as per the provision of section

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

50% of the donation is allowable expenditure [refer section 80G (1) (ii)]even if the assessee has included the expenditure as CSR Expenditure because there is no prohibition or restriction placed by the Parliament on such a donation even if shown as CSR expenditure. The reason for saying so is that in section 80G of the Act certain restrictions

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

50% of the donation is allowable expenditure [refer section 80G (1) (ii)]even if the assessee has included the expenditure as CSR Expenditure because there is no prohibition or restriction placed by the Parliament on such a donation even if shown as CSR expenditure. The reason for saying so is that in section 80G of the Act certain restrictions

KRISHNA HARI GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.668/Hyd/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Krishna Hari Gaddam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(1), [Pan No. Adepg7798Q] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02/11/2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Salaried Employee Of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Fled His Return Of Income, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 86,10,680/- & Paid Total Income Tax Of Rs. 27,37,674/-, Consisting Of Tax Deducted At Source (“Tds”) Of Rs. 15,11,384/- & Self Assessment Tax Of Rs.12,26,290/-. The Cpc Bengluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Dt. 08/05/2021 Did Not Give Credit Of Rs. 13,50,000/- Out Of Total Tds Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Deducted By M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Limited U/S. 192 Of The Act, Contending That Form 26As Does Contains The Details Of Tds Of Rs. 13,50,000/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.14,17,500/-.

50,000/-, after deducting the same from the salary paid to the assessee and in the absence of TDS not getting reflected in form 26AS, the CPC did not grant TDS credit to the assessee, however there is no fault on the-part of the assessee. On a careful consideration of the facts of the present case, we find that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. IL & FS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LIMITED , HYDERABAD

TDS on transport charges, disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia), unexplained expenditure, unverifiable labour charges, sub-contract payments, material purchases, and interest on borrowings.", "held": "The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Key decisions included deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,50

IL & FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED(FORMERLY MAYTAS INFRA LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, HYDERABAD

50,000\nDisallowance of provisional expenses on sub-\ncontract work done u/s 40(a)Iia)\n3,99,29,316\nDisallowance of other Expenditure covered u/s\n194C u/s 40(a)(ia)\n4,30,39,920\nDisallowance of interest charges on which TDS\nis not deducted u/s 40(a)(ia)\n4,63,85,362\nDisallowance of rental charges on which TDS

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

50,36,489/- to tax in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and since the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer by providing supporting documents in some of the expenses, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the explanation given by the assessee and made addition

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

50,36,489/- to tax in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and since the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer by providing supporting documents in some of the expenses, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the explanation given by the assessee and made addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

50,36,489/- to tax in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and since the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer by providing supporting documents in some of the expenses, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the explanation given by the assessee and made addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

50,36,489/- to tax in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and since the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer by providing supporting documents in some of the expenses, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the explanation given by the assessee and made addition

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

50,36,489/- to tax in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and since the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer by providing supporting documents in some of the expenses, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the explanation given by the assessee and made addition