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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

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

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

IDEA CELLULAR LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, WARD-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 206C( a TCS mechanism is TDS provision.) Therefore Assessee humbly submits that with utmost respect to Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in view of above facts on accounting and above submissions, a different view may be taken. In so far as recent decision of Hon'ble Hyderabad ITAT in Vodafone Mobile services Vs. DCIT (86

IDEA CELLULAR LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE, WARD-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 206C( a TCS mechanism is TDS provision.) Therefore Assessee humbly submits that with utmost respect to Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in view of above facts on accounting and above submissions, a different view may be taken. In so far as recent decision of Hon'ble Hyderabad ITAT in Vodafone Mobile services Vs. DCIT (86

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

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

TDS on such payments would, therefore, be deductible under Section 194J of the Act.“ Page 12 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. iii) Tony Hariris Business Solutions (P) Ltd – Para 5….. “5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the issue

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

TDS on such payments would, therefore, be deductible under Section 194J of the Act.“ Page 12 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. iii) Tony Hariris Business Solutions (P) Ltd – Para 5….. “5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the issue

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

TDS on such payments would, therefore, be deductible under Section 194J of the Act.“ Page 12 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. iii) Tony Hariris Business Solutions (P) Ltd – Para 5….. “5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the issue

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

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