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

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

86[or section 80ID or section 80IE], no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a 35 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. Section 139(5) If any person, having furnished a return under

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

86[or section 80ID or section 80IE], no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a 35 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. Section 139(5) If any person, having furnished a return under

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

TDS on transport\ncharges of raw materials.\n5. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the suppliers\nhave acted as agents of the assessee for transporting the goods to\nassessee. That the suppliers have collected freight charges from the\nassessee and paid to the transporters.\n6. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that

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

TDS on transport\ncharges of raw materials.\n5. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the suppliers\nhave acted as agents of the assessee for transporting the goods to\nassessee. That the suppliers have collected freight charges from the\nassessee and paid to the transporters.\n6. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that

MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

86,08,057/- were paid to M/s. Madhucon Projects Pvt. Ltd. and balance was paid to M/s. Sino Hydro Corporation. The Ld. AO treated the said payments by JV to its constituents as sub-contracts and found that no TDS in accordance with section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

86,08,057/- were paid to M/s. Madhucon Projects Pvt. Ltd. and balance was paid to M/s. Sino Hydro Corporation. The Ld. AO treated the said payments by JV to its constituents as sub-contracts and found that no TDS in accordance with section

MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

86,08,057/- were paid to M/s. Madhucon Projects Pvt. Ltd. and balance was paid to M/s. Sino Hydro Corporation. The Ld. AO treated the said payments by JV to its constituents as sub-contracts and found that no TDS in accordance with section

MADHUCON SINO HYDRA JV ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

86,08,057/- were paid to M/s. Madhucon Projects Pvt. Ltd. and balance was paid to M/s. Sino Hydro Corporation. The Ld. AO treated the said payments by JV to its constituents as sub-contracts and found that no TDS in accordance with 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

86,61,671/-. The case was subsequently reopened under Section 147 of the Act, for the reasons recorded, as per which, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of excess allowance of deduction towards expenditure of Rs. 5 Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited 7,30,66,667/- towards foreign exchange amortization loss under the head ‘other general expenses

SHARATH KUMAR REDDY SAREDDY,WANAPARTHY, MAHABUB NAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1096/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sharath Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sareddy, Wanaparthy Ward – 1 Mahbubnagar Mahbubnagar Pan:Hpwps0712H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

86,60,852/- against which the assessee claimed setting of loss from the game to the tune of Rs.2,01,37,400/- and thereby claimed a net loss of Rs.14,94,548/- from online gaming activities. The Assessing Officer denied the setting of the loss against the winning amount while passing the assessment order in view of the provisions

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

86,986/-. Book profit us115JB was also computed on the basis of P&L A/c furnished in the ROI It is seen that figures of all incomes credited (sales etc.) and expenses debited in the two P&L Account are different. Reasons for adopting lower figures are not ascertainable from the record. !t is seen from the fixed assets schedule

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

86,789\n244,06,29,302\n239,85,34,168\n2,55,11,638\n47,18,735\n242,87,64,541\n4,40,000\n77,56,706\n36,68,055\n1,18,64,761\nc) Rs.242,87,64,541 represents expenditure on which TDS is not deducted. The reason for non-\ndeduction of of TDS is that the expenditure

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. MAKAM RADHAKRISHNA RAMMOHAN, MADANAPALLE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

86,28,731/- on account of difference in valuation of diamond jewelry stock, Rs. 30,68,286/- on account of bogus making charges expenses, Rs. 5,74,843/- on account of non-deduction of TDS on bonus paid under section

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 44AB of the Act, where the auditor has not pointed out any discrepancies in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. In fact, the A.O. has also not made out any case of non-genuineness of the books of account maintained by the assessee, nor pointed out any discrepancies in the commission expenditure incurred for the year under

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

86,456,548/-. 4. The appellant aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, has filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the appellant submitted that it has received mobilization advance of Rs.157.65 crores on which TDS of Rs.3,15,30,612/- was deducted. Subsequently

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

86,11,625/-, Rs.2,78,25,606/- respectively. The appellant denies the liability and prays that the same may please be deleted.” 14. The ld.CIT(A) had granted partial relief to the assessee on the basis of the grounds raised by the assessee and estimated the income of the assessee at 10% instead of 12 ½% vide order dt.27.05.2011. The relevant

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

86,11,625/-, Rs.2,78,25,606/- respectively. The appellant denies the liability and prays that the same may please be deleted.” 14. The ld.CIT(A) had granted partial relief to the assessee on the basis of the grounds raised by the assessee and estimated the income of the assessee at 10% instead of 12 ½% vide order dt.27.05.2011. The relevant