SAHRUDAYA HEALTH CARE (KURNOOL) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sahrudaya Health Care Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Kurnool), Private Limited, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aawcs3735M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022

section 139(1) of the Act, there is no justification in disallowing the same. 5. When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor the authorized representative of the assessee are present. It could be seen from the record that the notices were sent to the address given in form No. 36. There is a presumption in law that

GRIP STRAPPING TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 139(1) of the Act, there is no justification in disallowing the same. 5. When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor any authorised representative entered appearance. It could be seen from the record that the notices were sent to the address given in form No. 36. There is a presumption in law that all the official acts

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 129/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sudhakar Rao Dondapati, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. Ward-13(3), [Pan No. Aeupr8022H] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Balaji, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख /Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Pronouncement On: 21/03/2023

disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC of Rs. 8,63,537/- in terms of Section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Learned CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT, [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178

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

Bench: Us:

178 (SC), which was delivered on 12.10.2022 was highly debatable and had only been settled after the aforesaid judgment, therefore, the A.O., CPC, Bengaluru had clearly traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction on the aforesaid issue which was highly debatable on the date when the subject intimation was 5 Dondapati Sudhakara

COMMUNITY PURE WATER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

178 (SC) to sustain the addition, but the learned AR now contends that the disallowability of PF & ESI contribution of the employees is a debatable issue and not available at the stage of 143(1) of the Act. His further argument is that as on the date of the intimation under section

COMMUNITY PURE WATER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

178 (SC) to sustain the addition, but the learned AR now contends that the disallowability of PF & ESI contribution of the employees is a debatable issue and not available at the stage of 143(1) of the Act. His further argument is that as on the date of the intimation under section

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

178 (SC). 7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. 8. Under section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the ‘income’ includes any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the Employees

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Nsl Renewable Power Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(1), Pan – Aabcn 6009L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/01/2022

section 263 of IT Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s. 263, dated 13-11-2018 was issued to the assessee as to why the Assessment order dtd. 30-11-2016 should not be revised as per the issues mentioned therein. 4. In response to the above said notice dtd.13-11-2018, the AR of the assessee submitted as under

YADIKI PACS,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee, Ms. Lavanya, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the JAO issuing notice under Section

HARSHINI EPC PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 43B of the Act. It was the contention of the assessee that the lower authorities have disallowed the payment made by the assessee under VAT and E.S.I & P.F. It was submitted that the assessee had deposited the said amount within a period of time and therefore, it cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. 10. On the other

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance made by the ld.CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the issue is required to be send back to the file of the Assessing Officer by issuing the similar direction as we have done in the case of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) in ITA Nos.1722 to 1726/Hyd/2022 wherein it was held as under

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance made by the ld.CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the issue is required to be send back to the file of the Assessing Officer by issuing the similar direction as we have done in the case of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemptions) in ITA Nos.1722 to 1726/Hyd/2022 wherein it was held as under

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

section 139(1) of the Act, there is no justification in disallowing the same. 5. When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor the authorized representative of the assessee is present. It could be seen from the record that the notices were sent to the address given in form No. 36. There is a presumption in law 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

section 139(1) of the Act, there is no justification in disallowing the same. 5. When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor the authorized representative of the assessee is present. It could be seen from the record that the notices were sent to the address given in form No. 36. There is a presumption in law that

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

section 14A to the tune of Rs. CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyd. 9,61,911/- and the assessee also filed an additional ground on 29/07/2019 contesting that the assessee has not received any exempt income, therefore, the disallowance u/s 14A should not be made. 4. From the above, it is clear that the issues involved

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

section 14A to the tune of Rs. CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyd. 9,61,911/- and the assessee also filed an additional ground on 29/07/2019 contesting that the assessee has not received any exempt income, therefore, the disallowance u/s 14A should not be made. 4. From the above, it is clear that the issues involved

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. IL & FS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LIMITED , HYDERABAD

178/- on the ground that for the above payments,\nprovisions of section 194C are not applicable. However, the\nLd.CIT(A) sustained the additions made towards disallowance

JAYA HOSPITALS,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

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

178 (SC). In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the impact of the provisions under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in depth and while holding the issue against the assessee, held as under : “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section