DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICE PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1242/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dy. Cit Vs. Satyam Venture Central Circle 3(2) Engineering Service Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad Pan: Aafcs3287D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Ev Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/06/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A), Hyderabad -11 For The A.Y.2022-23. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

permanent establishment (PE) in India, therefore, the said income is not chargeable to tax in India. The learned CIT (A) has allowed the claim of the assessee and deleted the disallowance

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SD ROAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 537/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sheladia Associates Inc, Adit (Int Taxn)-2, Secunderabad Vs. Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs7792F] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

permanent establishment of a foreign company located in the USA. It is engaged in the business of engineering and engineering consultancy services. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 on 30/10/2020, by declaring a total income of Rs. 3,80,95,360/-. Learned Assessing Officer, by order dated 31/12/2022, proposed to make addition

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-2,HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance of Rs.32,43,680/- claimed towards expenditure for third party vendors, Rs.1,81,67,730/- claimed towards direct expense recorded as business development expense. Both the authorities below held that the claim of expenditure under these stands is not be allowed. Hence, this appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a permanent establishment

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)

permanent establishment of the recipient in India, it cannot be taxed in India in terms of Article 5 read with Article 7 of India-Australia DTAA. (e) Erred in concluding that the business support services are rendered in India without any basis and purely on presumptions, surmises and conjectures. (f) Notwithstanding the above, the Ld. Authorities have erred

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Permanent Establishment [in short “PE”] in India. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the payment 16 ITA.No.975/Hyd./2024 made by the appellant-company to ADP-Australia for receiving business support services in terms of agreement between the parties and in light of provisions of sec.9(1)(vii) read with Tax Treaty between India and Australia. 12. Section

SEW FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.499/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sew Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions), Ward 1(4) Pan:Aaats7433H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V Siva Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1 Coimbatore, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-5 Coimbatore, 27-01-2025 Is Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the corpus donation only on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove that corpus donation is utilized or invested in the modes stated in section 11(5) of the I.T. Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has not disputed the genuineness

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS,KARIMNAGAR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

permanent labour, therefore, it was constrained to make payment of labour charges, centering and mason charges otherwise than through cheques. Elaborating further, it was the assessee’s claim 5 Sri Sai Constructions that under the aforesaid compelling circumstances, it was left with no alternative but to make cash payments which fell within the realm of the exceptions carved

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

established to have become a bad debt during the previous year, subject to certain conditions. However, a mere provision for bad and doubtful debt(s) is not allowed as a deduction in the computation of taxable profits. In order to promote rural banking and in order to assist the scheduled commercial banks in making adequate provisions from their current profits

UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

established to have become a bad debt during the previous year, subject to certain conditions. However, a mere provision for bad and doubtful debt(s) is not allowed as a deduction in the computation of taxable profits. In order to promote rural banking and in order to assist the scheduled commercial banks in making adequate provisions from their current profits

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

establish a relationship of contractor and sub-contractor, in addition to a formal agreement, it is necessary to show that the parties have acted in such a manner conducive to uphold a contractor-sub contractor relationship when there is a strong case of interlacing of finance and funds, interdependence or responsibilities, interconnection of activities. It is very difficult to come

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are identical and hence the AO is directed to give effect to other assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2002-03 in a similar way as for the AY 1998-99 as discussed in above paragraphs. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed”. 21. Although the revenue vide

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1), HYDERABAD vs. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are identical and hence the AO is directed to give effect to other assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2002-03 in a similar way as for the AY 1998-99 as discussed in above paragraphs. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed”. 21. Although the revenue vide

RITHWIK SWATHI JOINT VENTURE,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 6(1), HYDERABDA

Bench: Us:

disallowed the same and brought to tax and the CIT (A) has confirmed this addition. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal dated 22.3.2012, we find that the Tribunal has considered the fact that M/ s. PCL, being the Principal Contractor, has issued the bank guarantee in favour of THDC on behalf of the assessee and after considering

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft\nof any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

established,\nreconstructed or revived, be allowed a deduction of a sum by way\nof rehabilitation allowance equivalent to sixty percent of the\namount of the deduction allowable to him under clause (iii) of sub-\nsection (1) of section 32 in respect of the building, machinery,\nplant or furniture so damaged destroyed:\"\n5. 3. As could be seen from sub-section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft\nof any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

established,\nreconstructed or revived, be allowed a deduction of a sum by way\nof rehabilitation allowance equivalent to sixty percent of the\namount of the deduction allowable to him under clause (iii) of sub-\nsection (1) of section 32 in respect of the building, machinery,\nplant or furniture so damaged destroyed:\"\n5. 3. As could be seen from sub-section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. REGENCY CERAMICS LIMITED, HYDERABAB

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft\nof any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

established,\nreconstructed or revived, be allowed a deduction of a sum by way\nof rehabilitation allowance equivalent to sixty percent of the\namount of the deduction allowable to him under clause (iii) of sub-\nsection (1) of section 32 in respect of the building, machinery,\nplant or furniture so damaged destroyed:\"\n5. 3. As could be seen from sub-section

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

disallowed the claim on the short ground that the benefit is not available to the appellant as the notification specifying Ranga Reddy District as backward area was published on 20.07.2016 and therefore the Appellant Company is not eligible to the deduction as the addition and installation of the machinery were made prior to the said date. Aggrieved with the action