ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowance could be made under section 14A, the\ndepartmental SLP against the order of High Court in IL&FS Energy\nDevelopment Company Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi) was\nstill pending before the Supreme Court. In view of the above, an\namount of Rs.1,10,115

SHIVA RANJANI VEJJA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

115 WE or under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not he completed to the best of the Judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier; (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served

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

disallowance of contract\ncharges of Rs.6,25,000/- paid to Nagindevi\nAgarwal u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of\nnon-deduction of TDS?\nAccordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the\nDepartment Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the\nprovision for educational facilities is being made by assessee\nas a part of its obligation under

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

disallowance of contract\ncharges of Rs.6,25,000/- paid to Nagindevi\nAgarwal u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of\nnon-deduction of TDS?\nAccordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the\nDepartment Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the\nprovision for educational facilities is being made by assessee\nas a part of its obligation under

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

disallowance of contract charges of Rs.6,25,000/- paid to Nagindevi Agarwal u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of non-deduction of TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

disallowance of contract charges of Rs.6,25,000/- paid to Nagindevi Agarwal u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of non-deduction of TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) for an amount of Rs.27,69,82,420/- stating that assessee has not produced Form 3CL and form 3CM. The assessee contended that the R & D facility was duly approved by the competent authority and relevant certificates were produced before the AO. 2.5.2 Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 37 of the Act towards CSR expenditure, Rs.2,07,247/- on account of disallowance towards prior period expenses and Rs.38 lakhs on account of non-reconciliation of income as per profit and ITA No.1747/Hyd/2019 14 loss account and form no.26AS. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,74,79,993/-. 6. Aggrieved with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PVT. LTD.,, MADHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.302/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Hsbc Electronic Data Processing Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aaach8235M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80G of the Act and also rejected the claim for refund of excessive DDT paid under section 115

HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.302/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Hsbc Electronic Data Processing Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aaach8235M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80G of the Act and also rejected the claim for refund of excessive DDT paid under section 115

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

115]B of the Act is a self-contained code and the AO has no jurisdiction to alter the book profit except to the extent provided in the explanation to section 115JB of the Act; Disallowances

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 192/Hyd/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyam Venture Assistant Commissioner Engineering Services Vs. Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(2), Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs3287D] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowing payments made to three foreign entities. 5. At the outset, learned AR submitted that for the assessment year 2009-10, an issue similar to the adjustment in respect of ITeS services had arisen in assessee’s own case before the Tribunal in ITA No.1464/Hyd/2014 and by order dated 29/12/2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal directed the learned

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), , HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MAITHRI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and the Revenue\nare partly allowed

disallowance of claim of deduction of\nexpenditure against the unaccounted cash receipts from sale of\nspent solvents / scrap. The facts with regard to the impugned\ndispute are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and\nsale of bulk drugs. In the process, the assessee purchased various\nsolvents and used them for manufacturing bulk drugs. The used\nsolvents

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/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 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/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:

disallowance of contract charges of Rs.6,25,000/- paid to Nagindevi Agarwal u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of non-deduction of TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/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 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/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:

disallowance of contract charges of Rs.6,25,000/- paid to Nagindevi Agarwal u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of non-deduction of TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/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 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/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:

disallowance of contract charges of Rs.6,25,000/- paid to Nagindevi Agarwal u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of non-deduction of TDS? Accordingly, we have heard Advocate Parchure for the Department Advocate Dewani for assessee. We find that the provision for educational facilities is being made by assessee as a part of its obligation under