SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 40(a)(ia) rws 194 of the Act. In view of the above observations, the AO disallowed the interest

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 40(a) (i) of the Act against the reimbursements made to its AEs, disregarding the well settled ratio in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd [2010] 194

ITO, WARD-14(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUSTAN RATNA (JV), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Vs. Hindustan Ratna (Jv), Ward-14(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaefh 0901 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Vinod Revenue By: Sri D. Srinivas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2018 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

194.C on the sub-contract payments or to invoke section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an AOP and engaged in ‘contract works’, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 electronically on 30.09.3011 admitting income of Rs. 38,96,888/-. During the proceedings

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

disallowance of 30% was unwarranted. 10. Section 40 provides as follows Amounts not deductible. 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 41[38], the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— 42[(i)43 44any interest

SRI RAGHVENDRA AGRO INDUSTRIES,MANTRALAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, ADONI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Sworn By Shri Archaka Vyasarajachar, Partner Of The Assessee Firm, Explaining The Facts Relating To Filing Of The Appeal. As Per The Affidavit, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Served On The Assessee On 25.09.2024 & The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 24.11.2024. The Assessee Submitted That, Form No. 36, As Per The Prescribed Procedure, Was Filed Electronically On 20.11.2024, Which Is Within The Period Of Limitation.

Section 143(1) of the Act dated 30.05.2024 was issued. While processing the return, the CPC made an adjustment of ₹1,01,08,010/- comprising disallowance of interest of ₹89,66,194

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) for disallowing interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 29,15,240/- without appreciating the fact that thee assessee has not incurred any expenditure which is directly attributable towards investments in mutual funds. 6. The ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is justified. Page 9 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. 7.3 Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the AO has treated the payment as fee for technical services

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is justified. Page 9 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. 7.3 Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the AO has treated the payment as fee for technical services

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is justified. Page 9 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. 7.3 Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the AO has treated the payment as fee for technical services

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM vs. VARALAKHSMI CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.303 & 304/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Varalakshmi Ward-1 Constructions Khammam Khammam Pan:Aagfv0744C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Both Dated 22/01/2024 For The A.Ys 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal For These A.Ys. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue For The A.Y 2014-15 Are As Under:

section 44AD of I. T. Act, 1961. After taking into consideration all the material facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee-firm is estimated @ 8% on gross contract receipts clear of depreciation, interest and remuneration paid to partners apart from assessing other income, if any, separately. Accordingly, the income is estimated @ 8% on the contract receipts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KHAMMAM vs. VARALAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.303 & 304/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Varalakshmi Ward-1 Constructions Khammam Khammam Pan:Aagfv0744C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Both Dated 22/01/2024 For The A.Ys 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal For These A.Ys. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue For The A.Y 2014-15 Are As Under:

section 44AD of I. T. Act, 1961. After taking into consideration all the material facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee-firm is estimated @ 8% on gross contract receipts clear of depreciation, interest and remuneration paid to partners apart from assessing other income, if any, separately. Accordingly, the income is estimated @ 8% on the contract receipts