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, which is not an item of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 86/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, cannot be upheld. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 86/- made under Section

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 statement within the time along with the details of PAN Nos. name and amount of credit etc., due to non- availability of the same. The provisions of section 194C(7) makes it clear that the person responsible for paying or crediting any sum to the person referred to in sub-section (6

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 80IA(8) and mandates of judicial authorities. 4b. By rejecting the comparable market rate for procurement of power from Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) and determining the Arm’s Length Price at Rs. 2.97/- per unit, being the median of the various sale prices charged by the power unit to the independent third parties. 4c. By not appreciating

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SD ROAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 537/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sheladia Associates Inc, Adit (Int Taxn)-2, Secunderabad Vs. Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs7792F] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

section 133(6), seeking certain specific details was issued, but it seems such notices were not responded to. Hence, the learned Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 61,05,381/-. 5. Before the learned DRP, as it could be read from the order of the learned DRP, the assessee furnished certain additional evidences like confirmed ledgers from third party

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

6 ITA.No.670/Hyd./2025 said show cause notice, the learned PCIT observed that, there is a mismatch of turnover as per the books of accounts of the assessee and the turnover as per TDS claimed for Rs.3,48,436/- which was not examined by the Assessing Officer. The learned PCIT further noted that, the assessee debited an amount of Rs.24

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-II, HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.725/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. C.I.T (It)-Ii Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aadcs4061P (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

6. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Nagarjuna Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd vs. ACIT (Supra) where it has been clearly held that the TDS rate

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. Accordingly, the Ld. AR pleaded for deletion of the disallowance of Rs.2,10,265/-. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the findings of the Ld. AO and submitted that the interest paid under section

HCC CP PL JV,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Hcc Cp Pl Jv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaaah5541G. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Appeared Through Hybrid Mode) Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

TDS should be allowed to the assessee, in terms of Section 199(1) read with Rule 37BA of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 6

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

section 154 of the Act,\nrespectively. As the Ld. AR has failed to point out any perversity in the aforesaid\nobservations of the CIT(A), therefore, we find no reason to dislodge the same.\n24. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.\nITA No. 1237/Hyd/2025

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

6. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the explanation of the assessee company regarding the delay in filing the TDS statements. Vivimed Labs Limited vs. DCIT 7. Apropos the claim of the assessee company that the demands as contested were not tallying with the orders passed under section

SURYAKANTH REDDYSHEETYWAR,ADILABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for\nstatistical purposes

TDS was claimed was not declared. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance with notices.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

section 144:" 6. 5. In view of the discrepancies noticed and also in the absence of any evidence,\nthe books of accounts maintained by the assessee cannot be relied upon. Hence, the\nassessee was issued a showcause notice requiring to showcause as to why the\nsame should not be rejected u/ sec.145(3) of the Act.\n7. In response

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

6,59,366/-. Assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act was complete by order dated 28/12/2019 by making an addition of Rs. 25,05,255/- on account of disallowance of interest for late deposition of TDS

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

CYIENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2021-22 Cyient Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Apn : Aaac14887J

TDS does not arise and accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st January, 2025. (VIJAY

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

6 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 requirement of section 135 of the Companies Act, the benefit gets exhausted and such an amount is no more available for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80G of the Act. 14. Coming to the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no express provision to support the contention of Revenue

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

6 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 requirement of section 135 of the Companies Act, the benefit gets exhausted and such an amount is no more available for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80G of the Act. 14. Coming to the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no express provision to support the contention of Revenue

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

TDS) under section 194C of the Act. As the assessee company had failed to come forth with any details regarding the subject contractual receipts, therefore, the AO computed the income on the same @8% of the gross receipts of Rs. 3,20,42,152/-, which, thus, resulted to an addition of Rs. 25,63,372/-. 6