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:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

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:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

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:

TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under various National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which are legally enforceable in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said provision is also accepted

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

73,38,438 2018-19 9,79,67,978 6,83,45,676 2019-20 3,78,69,796 2,64,19,212 2020-21 5,95,94,164 4,15,74,845 2021-22 3,00,82,983 2,09,86,875 2022-23 114,26,53,017 85,36,56,501 2023-24 1,61,80,065 1

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

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

73,38,438 2018-19 9,79,67,978 6,83,45,676 2019-20 3,78,69,796 2,64,19,212 2020-21 5,95,94,164 4,15,74,845 2021-22 3,00,82,983 2,09,86,875 2022-23 114,26,53,017 85,36,56,501 2023-24 1,61,80,065 1

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

TDS details, it seems to be that the assessee is a subcontractor handling the works on contractual agreement and it is known that deduction u/ s 80IA is not eligible for contractors. Therefore, the assessee has filed revised return and claimed deduction u/s 80IA as an afterthought. It is confirmed from the unsecured loans that all are mobilization advances

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

TDS details, it seems to be that the assessee is a subcontractor handling the works on contractual agreement and it is known that deduction u/ s 80IA is not eligible for contractors. Therefore, the assessee has filed revised return and claimed deduction u/s 80IA as an afterthought. It is confirmed from the unsecured loans that all are mobilization advances

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 of the GST Act which provides as under : “Section 50- Interest on delayed payment of tax.- (1) Every person who is liable to pay tax in accordance with

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

73,21,403/- Interest u/s 234B 29,229/- Interest u/s 234C Interest u/s 234D 0 Interest u/s 234F 0 1,37,65,576/- Total Interest 2,07,38,340/- Total tax +Interest = Less: TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

73,21,403/- Interest u/s 234B 29,229/- Interest u/s 234C Interest u/s 234D 0 Interest u/s 234F 0 1,37,65,576/- Total Interest 2,07,38,340/- Total tax +Interest = Less: TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

73,21,403/- Interest u/s 234B 29,229/- Interest u/s 234C Interest u/s 234D 0 Interest u/s 234F 0 1,37,65,576/- Total Interest 2,07,38,340/- Total tax +Interest = Less: TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

73,21,403/- Interest u/s 234B 29,229/- Interest u/s 234C Interest u/s 234D 0 Interest u/s 234F 0 1,37,65,576/- Total Interest 2,07,38,340/- Total tax +Interest = Less: TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

73,21,403/- Interest u/s 234B 29,229/- Interest u/s 234C Interest u/s 234D 0 Interest u/s 234F 0 1,37,65,576/- Total Interest 2,07,38,340/- Total tax +Interest = Less: TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

73,21,403/- Interest u/s 234B 29,229/- Interest u/s 234C Interest u/s 234D 0 Interest u/s 234F 0 1,37,65,576/- Total Interest 2,07,38,340/- Total tax +Interest = Less: TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 6,56,720/- Tax paid u/s 140A Regular Tax Paid 0 6,56,720/- TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 Refund Issued

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.] 13. In the present case, search has taken place in the premises of assessee on 09.08.2018 and in the search, the assessee had declared the income in the return of income filed after the date of search and admitted the addition, therefore

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.] 15. In the present case, search has taken place in the premises of assessee on 09.08.2018 and in the search, the assessee had declared the income in the return of income filed after the date of search and admitted the addition, therefore

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.] 15. In the present case, search has taken place in the premises of assessee on 09.08.2018 and in the search, the assessee had declared the income in the return of income filed after the date of search and admitted the addition, therefore

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

73,257/- and for FY 2015-16 TDS was deducted of Rs. 12,74,589/- on the roaming charges paid to other telecom operators of Rs. 1,49,21,934.86. He, therefore, submitted that the roaming charges paid by the assessee to the other telecom service providers needs to be treated as royalty payments within the meaning of clause

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

73,257/- and for FY 2015-16 TDS was deducted of Rs. 12,74,589/- on the roaming charges paid to other telecom operators of Rs. 1,49,21,934.86. He, therefore, submitted that the roaming charges paid by the assessee to the other telecom service providers needs to be treated as royalty payments within the meaning of clause