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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57

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

57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly, necessarily

GLOBAL DEVELOPERS,NELLORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1683/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Global Developers, Vs. Dcit, Nellore. Circle-1, Pan: Aagfg8471R Nellore. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi. P, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

TDS) of Rs.38,57,609/-, but not deposited the same in the Central Government account. Accordingly, the AO disallowed 30% of Rs.38,57,609/- and made a disallowance of Rs.11,57,283/-. 5. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section

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

TDS and further\ndisallowance of EPF & ESI under Section 36(1)(va) for Rs.\n3,66,095/-, addition towards disallowance of interest expenditure\nunder Section 36(1)(iii) for Rs. 11,08,678/-, disallowance of\nexpenses claimed by the assessee under the head ‘trade discounts'\nand 'seed purchases' to the tune of Rs. 18,31,21,070/- and\naddition towards

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 :

TDS credit as per law. The above ground is allowed to that extent accordingly. The Ground nos. 6 & 7 are consequential to the grounds adjudicated above, therefore needs no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before

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

57,51,404/- on which TDS\nprovisions are not applicable, interest paid to supplier of material\nfor Rs.22,13,759/- on which the appellant has paid to the\ncreditors for delayed payments and since these are not in the\nnature of interest on loans, section

G S R VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Chary(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gsr Ventures Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, [Pan No. Aadcg1415H] Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Section 199 of the Act, the words “for the assessment year for which such income is assessable” were dropped/deleted and, therefore, the mapping of TDS to the income is not at all the legal requirement. It is further submitted by the Ld.AR that the TDS should be treated as ‘advance tax’ and credit of TDS cannot be denied. On this

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

57,51,404/- on which TDS\nprovisions are not applicable, interest paid to supplier of material\nfor Rs.22,13,759/- on which the appellant has paid to the\ncreditors for delayed payments and since these are not in the\nnature of interest on loans, 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

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI vs. BI MINING PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit Vs. M/S Bi Mining (P) Ltd Central Circle Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aagcb6685D (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/05/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Visakhapatnam, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances, The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow Credit Of Tds Without Appreciating The Fact That, The Claim Of The Assessee

TDS credit of Rs.3,57,74,970/-, duly reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant, for the A.Y 20917-18. The learned CIT (A) further held that, in the peculiar facts of the case, provisions of Rule 37BA(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 cannot be made applicable to the appellant. Further, on the contrary provisions of section

TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

57,372/- on account of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The A.O., CPC, Bangalore, while processing the return of income, however, granted credit for TDS of Rs. 49,187/- only, resulting in a refund of Rs. 50,660/-. 3 Tirumala Estates, Hyderabad. 3. Aggrieved the assessee assailed the intimation issued by the A.O./CPC under Section

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

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS. Ld. AR further submitted that the payee’s had paid the taxes in accordance with the law and therefore, no disallowance can be made by the Assessing Officer. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR had submitted that no evidence was furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings before the lower authorities and therefore, the lower

DIWAKAR LOGISTICS ,TADIPATRI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2014-15 M/S.Diwakar Logistics Vs. A.C.I.T Tadipatri Circle – 1 Pan:Aahfd0549E Anantapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.12.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Kurnool, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Fact Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Transportation Of Goods & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,90,390/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited Finance Charges Of Rs.2,81,642/- & Transportation Charges Paid To Others Of Rs.74,57,350/-. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Page 1 Of 8

TDS from the transport charges made to various parties. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.74,57

RAASI REFRACTORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

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, therefore he 5 agreed that the assessee is not in default in view of section 201 (1), accepted the Certificates of the CA in Form 26A and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Coca Cola (supra). Assessee has not correctly presented the facts before the CIT(A) visa-vis the Form 3CD filed by itself

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would