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

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

TDS Range-2, Hyd 08 DV Ramakrishna ITI JDIT(Inv.), Unit-IV, Vijayawada 09 Kilaru Viranjancyulu ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(2), Hyderabad 10 Rajesh Kumar Meena ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad 11 Ravindra Reddy Avula ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(4), Hyderabad 12 Dandaboina Lingam ITI DDIT(Inv.), Unit-II(2), Hyderabad 13 Ravi Kumar Saroj

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

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 U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

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

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 U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

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

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 U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

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

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 U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

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

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 U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

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

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 U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc 2,00,81,620/- = Balance tax payable Round off ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 9. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT

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

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

90 days for repatriation of money in the event of primary adjustment. l) Not allowing the credit period as allowed by RBI. 18. Ground 18: Short grant of TDS and TCS credits 18.1 The Ld. AO erred in law and facts by granting TDS credit amounting to INR 8,80,40,347/- instead

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS payments, assets, borrowings, and other supporting documents. The assessee submitted partial and complete responses on various dates and also participated in video- conference proceedings on 12.09.2023, furnishing explanations on ICDS and related issues. Since the assessee had reported large 6 Gainsight Software Private Limited value international transactions in respect of provision of software development services, a reference was made

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The

TDS related disallowances; and (vii) prior year adjustments. After necessary verifications, the AO accepted the assessee's explanation on the issues other than the TP adjustment that was suggested by the TPO. 6. The AO thereafter issued a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act, dated 26/09/2023, wherein, after incorporating the TP adjustments, he proposed to assess

PRASANTH NANDANURU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS was also sought, but it is irrelevant for our purpose. We shall cull out the ratio in respect of the chargeability of salary received in India in respect of the services rendered outside India. 13. It was contended by the Indian entity that section 4 of the Act created a charge on the total income subject to the provisions

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

TDS, without appreciating fact that, the payments are not taxable in India under the provisions of respective tax treaties. 7.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that, by applying most favoured nation clause as contained in India Netherlands tax treaty and by accessing India-Finland

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

TDS, without appreciating fact that, the payments are not taxable in India under the provisions of respective tax treaties. 7.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that, by applying most favoured nation clause as contained in India Netherlands tax treaty and by accessing India-Finland

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

90,124/- after claiming exemption of Rs.84,87,05,352/- u/s 10B under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.70,09,87,659/- u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act. Since the assessee had entered into certain international

AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

90 or Section 91 even though the appellant was eligible under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The denial is unjustified and contrary to the intent of the Act. 9. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the return processed under Section 143(1) cannot decide complex issues such as foreign-tax- credit eligibility and therefore exceeded jurisdiction by confirming

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS on payment made to subcontractors, advertisement expenses, interest on TDS. The A.O. disallowed 30% of expenditure incurred towards subcontract payment of Rs. 41,90,848/- and made addition of Rs. 12,57,254/-. Similarly, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 45,000/- @ 30% of advertisement expenses