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

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9

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

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9

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

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9

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

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9

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

TDS deduction on royalty makes it clear in Explanation (ba) that “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 clause (i) to (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/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 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Hyderabad Singareni Collieries Company Limited Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राजस्व द्वारा / 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:

9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed investment allowance under Section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that electricity is not an article or thing and also ignored the bills and certificates in support of acquisition and installation, on assumption, which

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. He was of the opinion that the services rendered to the assessee by non-resident Equant fall under section 9

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. He was of the opinion that the services rendered to the assessee by non-resident Equant fall under section 9

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. He was of the opinion that the services rendered to the assessee by non-resident Equant fall under section 9

ANANTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 9 and hence no TDS is required to be deducted. AO, however, contended that as per the provisions of Section

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)

9,20,00,000/- is nothing but a dummy entry or fictitious entry in the books of account of the assessee without there being any actual payment to any person for carrying out the works, in our considered view, the above payment cannot be subject to TDS under Section

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)

9,20,00,000/- is nothing but a dummy entry or fictitious entry in the books of account of the assessee without there being any actual payment to any person for carrying out the works, in our considered view, the above payment cannot be subject to TDS under Section

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)

9,20,00,000/- is nothing but a dummy entry or fictitious entry in the books of account of the assessee without there being any actual payment to any person for carrying out the works, in our considered view, the above payment cannot be subject to TDS under Section

REASONING GLOBAL E-APPLICATIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Reasoning Global E- Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Application Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aadcr6701P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing It Enabled Electronic Commerce Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of Rs.9,52,71,232/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited An Amount Of Rs.1,02,18,116/- Towards Web Hosting Charges. From The Bills/Invoices Produced For The Expenditure So Claimed, The Page 1 Of 19

TDS on the payments made to the assessee company. Thus, it is evident that the payments made by the assessee in respect of these software/licenses are in the nature of ‘royalty’ within the meaning of section 9

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. Under Section 5 of the Act, non-residents are taxable in India only on incomes which are received/deemed to be received or accrued/deemed to be accrued in India. The residency and incorporation certificates of all the three entities stating that they are incorporated in Dubai are on record. The commission agents are non-residents

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-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSPIRA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAB

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Nspira Management Circle-16(1) Services Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

TDS as per section 195(1) of the Act. 16. In rebuttal, the ld.DR for the Revenue had submitted that even presuming that the contention of the assessee is correct, then also, the assessee was having PE and business connection in India and therefore, in view of the Explanation 2 to Section 9

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

TDS], which is not an allowable expenditure, but, the Assessing Officer has not examined the same in light of relevant provisions of section 9