ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra), we are of the view that the delayed payment in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI is not allowable. Since the issue stands decided against

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra), we are of the view that the delayed payment in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI is not allowable. Since the issue stands decided against

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

17,19,20, 22 and 23 the appellant in the submission dated 02.07.2019 reproduced above has brought out the comparison between the works which have been allowed by the AO in AY 2017-18 as eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA The chart is reproduced as under:- 20 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) From the above it is clear that

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

17,19,20, 22 and 23 the appellant in the submission dated 02.07.2019 reproduced above has brought out the comparison between the works which have been allowed by the AO in AY 2017-18 as eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA The chart is reproduced as under:- 20 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) From the above it is clear that

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in the order dated 14.05.2019 passed under section 143(1) of the Act and, therefore, we hold that the learned CIT(A) rightly upheld the same. No interference is warranted and the appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee in ITA 424/Hyd/2022

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in the order dated 14.05.2019 passed under section 143(1) of the Act and, therefore, we hold that the learned CIT(A) rightly upheld the same. No interference is warranted and the appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee in ITA 424/Hyd/2022

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 12. Ground No.2 Before us, ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs.12,19,9361/- as interest on delayed payments of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The ld. AR further submitted that the interest paid on late

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance are attributable to circumstances beyond the Appellant's control. 17. Without prejudice to the grounds 11 to 14 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making adjustment towards the delay in deposit of PF without giving cognizance to the fact that the same was deposited by the Appellant after

VE VEE'S MANAGERIAL SERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 167/Hyd/2022 & 168/Hyd/2022 are allowed and ITA No

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

disallowances u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) can be made on account of delayed payment of PF and ESIC, if such payments are made before the due date of filing of the return. It has further been held in these decisions that the amendment to section 43B as well as section 36(1)(va) r.w.s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

va) of the Act is concerned, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that by relying on the orders of ITAT in the case of M/s. Nuzivedu Swati Costal Consortium and order passed by CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in the case of M/s. Golden Star Facilities, dt.29.02.2016, allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 43B of the Act. He directed the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), HYDERABAD vs. RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

va) of the Act is concerned, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that by relying on the orders of ITAT in the case of M/s. Nuzivedu Swati Costal Consortium and order passed by CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in the case of M/s. Golden Star Facilities, dt.29.02.2016, allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 43B of the Act. He directed the Assessing Officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

17. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd (supra) has considered the issue and held that in case of belated payment of employee contribution to 25 PF and ESI, beyond the due date specified under the respective Act, cannot be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section

DONDAPATI SUDHAKARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

va) of the Act, had not been considered in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. AR, therefore, the same would not carry his case any further. The Ld. DR submitted that “Explanation 1” (supra) had clarified beyond doubt that the “due date” within which an assessee is obligated to deposit the employees' share of contribution

GATI KINTESTU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chariassessment Year: 2019-20

17,230/-, Page 1 of 4 ITA No 127 of 2022 Gati Kintetsu Express P Ltd Hyderabad comprising income under the head business and profession and income from other sources. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the Tax Audit Report (TAR) (Col.20(b)) that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.75,62,689/- from

LSC STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Lsc Steels Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 5-2-196/1, Of Income Tax, Near Ravi Weigh Bridge Circle – 16(1), Distillery Road Hyderabad. Secunderabad Hyderabad-500003 Pan : Aabcl2762J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Mutha Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2021 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Ay 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 47 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee, For Which Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

17,988/- on account of delayed payment of PF and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T.Act. Before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI have been made before the due date of filing of the return and therefore, no disallowance

NTT DATA BUSINESS SOLUTIOS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in considering the income determined under 6 ITA.No.489/Hyd./2022 section 143(1)(a) for computing the total assessed income instead of considering income declared by the Appellant in the return of income and in doing so Ld. AO erred

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be unlawful Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence, if any one says

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be unlawful Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence, if any one says