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

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(1)(vi

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

9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored the bills and certificates in support\nof acquisition and installation, on assumption, which

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

vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9 ;] Section 194C provides as under :- Payments to contractors. 16a194C. (1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under Section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored the bills and certificates in support\nof acquisition and installation, on assumption, which

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

9. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have gone through the findings of Ld. DRP placed at page nos.84 & 85 of its order which is to the following effect : ITA No.912/Hyd/2024 11 9.1 We have also gone through the relevant portion of order

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

TDS of royalty as per Explanation was applicable on the same. to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act The dispute

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

vi] s. 139(1), then no claim of deduction can be allowed to the appellant. The section 80A(5) and section 80AC are reproduced as under: 80A(5): "Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deductions under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision

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

vi] s. 139(1), then no claim of deduction can be allowed to the appellant. The section 80A(5) and section 80AC are reproduced as under: 80A(5): "Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deductions under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

vi) of sub-section (2) of section 17 and such specified security or sweat equity\nshares referred to in the said clause are allotted or transferred directly or indirectly by the current employer,\nbeing an eligible start-up referred to in section 80-IAC, the income-tax on such income shall be payable by the\nassessee within fourteen days

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

vi) of sub-section (2) of section 17 and such specified security or sweat equity\nshares referred to in the said clause are allotted or transferred directly or indirectly by the current employer,\nbeing an eligible start-up referred to in section 80-IAC, the income-tax on such income shall be payable by the\nassessee within fourteen days

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj\nITI

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

TDS Range-2, Hyd\n08\nDV Ramakrishna\nITI\nJDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada\n09\nKilaru Viranjancyulu\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad\n10\nRajesh Kumar Meena\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n11\nRavindra Reddy Avula\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad\n12\nDandaboina Lingam\nITI\nDDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad\n13\nRavi Kumar Saroj\nITI