EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961 / 37Aof the W. T.Act 1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place mentioned at (B) above and duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Sri Ramesh Kumar Sanaka who was present in the said place at the time and who after reading

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non- compliance of twin conditions under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, namely, the declaration under Section 10B (8) was not submitted along with the original return of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to the exemption/benefit under Section

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non- compliance of twin conditions under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, namely, the declaration under Section 10B (8) was not submitted along with the original return of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to the exemption/benefit under Section

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non- compliance of twin conditions under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, namely, the declaration under Section 10B (8) was not submitted along with the original return of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to the exemption/benefit under Section

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non- compliance of twin conditions under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, namely, the declaration under Section 10B (8) was not submitted along with the original return of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to the exemption/benefit under Section

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

b) Cooper Corporation Pvt Ltd., Vs DCIT, reported in ITA No. 866/PN/2014. (c) CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd., reported 179 taxman.com 326 (SC) (d) Gati Limited Vs ITO, in ITA No. 1325/Hyd/2015. (e) Crane Software International Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 741/Ban/2010. 6.2 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.1514 & 1515/Hyd/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT, Circle-2(2) Vs. M/s. Tracks & Towers Room No.513, 5th Floor Infratech Private Limited Signature Tower (Part IX) Opposite Botanical #8-2-293/82/A/J/11 Garden Plot No.206, Road No.76 Kondapur Jubilee Hills Hyderabad

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.1514 & 1515/Hyd/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT, Circle-2(2) Vs. M/s. Tracks & Towers Room No.513, 5th Floor Infratech Private Limited Signature Tower (Part IX) Opposite Botanical #8-2-293/82/A/J/11 Garden Plot No.206, Road No.76 Kondapur Jubilee Hills Hyderabad

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

b) It is also stated by the assessee that as per the provisions of section 199 of the Act, the tax deduction shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the Joint Venture since the deduction is out of the gross contract receipts paid to the Joint Venture and has quoted selective portion of the said section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

7. Disallowance of unclaimed liabilities u/s. 41(1) (Rs.1,45,76,035/-): Assessee reflected unclaimed liabilities of Rs.1.45 crores. Assessee was asked to file the details of such unclaimed expenses. As per the details filed it is seen that there is an opening balance of Rs.81,44,795/- for which no break up or details are filed. Similarly, with regard

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 132 of the income tax Act 1961 /\n37Aof the W. T.Act 1957 in the case of (A) above to search the place mentioned at (B) above\nand duly signed and sealed by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Hyderabad to Sri\nRamesh Kumar Sanaka who was present in the said place at the time and who after\nreading

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

7 of 78\nform of an asset, expenditure in respect of transaction or in\nrelation to an event/occasion or an entry or entries in the books\nof account which has escaped the assessment amounts to or is\nlikely to amount Rs.50 lakhs or more. The Assessing Officer has\nundisputedly issued notice u/s 148 beyond 3 years but without\nsatisfying

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

7 of 78\n\nform of an asset, expenditure in respect of transaction or in\nrelation to an event/occasion or an entry or entries in the books\nof account which has escaped the assessment amounts to or is\nlikely to amount Rs.50 lakhs or more. The Assessing Officer has\nundisputedly issued notice u/s 148 beyond 3 years but without\nsatisfying

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

7, the assessee has challenged the\nvalidity of initiation of re-assessment proceedings by issuing\nnotice u/s 148 of the Act for want of fulfilment of the prescribed\nconditions laid down u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. The learned Counsel\nfor the assessee has submitted that the alleged incriminating\nmaterial was found from the Laptop of one Shri Ramesh Kumar

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

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

B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्यायिक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1179/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Rama Agri Genetics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of (INDIA) Private Limited, Kurnool. PAN: AAJCS5041F (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

1) of the Act and no proceedings have been initiated in this regard. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 10,34,375/- towards Rent a/ c. 23. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

1) of the Act and no proceedings have been initiated in this regard. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 10,34,375/- towards Rent a/ c. 23. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 1941 are not applicable