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

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

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

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

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 35E for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11. 6. TDS on interest on land compensation deposited in court as per court