BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of ‘site expenses’ of Rs. 44,24,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 56. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2019-20 is partly allowed. 57. To sum up, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of ‘site expenses’ of Rs. 44,24,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 56. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2019-20 is partly allowed. 57. To sum up, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

disallowance of ‘site expenses’ of Rs. 44,24,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 56. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2019-20 is partly allowed. 57. To sum up, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced

AMARA RAJA POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

disallowances arising out of the payments made\nto the contractors, therefore, the Pr. CIT had wrongly observed that\nthe A.O. had passed the assessment order without making\ninquiries or verification that should have been made. The Ld. A.R.\nfurther submitted that the Pr. CIT had, based on his incorrect\nobservations, triggered the “Explanation 2(a)” to Section

DIWAKAR LOGISTICS ,TADIPATRI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2014-15 M/S.Diwakar Logistics Vs. A.C.I.T Tadipatri Circle – 1 Pan:Aahfd0549E Anantapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.12.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Kurnool, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Fact Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Transportation Of Goods & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,90,390/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited Finance Charges Of Rs.2,81,642/- & Transportation Charges Paid To Others Of Rs.74,57,350/-. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Page 1 Of 8

194C(7) of the Act wherein under the rigors of the section vis-à-vis the transporters was scaled down to a great extent and therefore the order of the Ld CIT (A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 74,57,350/- is unsustainable in law. (3

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned PCIT, in light of relevant evidences placed by the Counsel for the Assessee, to justify it’s case. 13. Admittedly, the original assessment in the present case is under section 143(3

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

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

194C of the Act. Filing of return of income by the sub-contractors is not within the domain of the assessee and beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, non-furnishing of return of income by the sub-contractors is not a ground for disbelieving or doubting the genuineness of the payments made by the assessee. Since the assessee

AMRCL KCL (JV),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Section 194C of the Act. Therefore, the A.O. disallowed 30% of subcontract expenditure and added back sum of Rs. 3

GLOBAL DEVELOPERS,NELLORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1683/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Global Developers, Vs. Dcit, Nellore. Circle-1, Pan: Aagfg8471R Nellore. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi. P, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

194C): Rs.1,09,885/-; (ii) interest other than the interest on securities (under section 194A): Rs.35,85,844/-; (iii) fees for professional or technical services (under section 194J): Rs.6,000/-; and (iv) rent (under section 194I): Rs.1,55,880/-. In our view, as the assessee firm had failed to deposit tax deducted at source (TDS) of Rs.38,57,609/- (supra

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024

3. Deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. As per the return of income filed for AY.2017-18, the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.51,05,42,962/- under section of the Act. In this regard, the assessee was asked to furnish supporting evidence in respect of deduction claimed. The assessee in reply submitted copies of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 02/01/2009

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of expenditure towards currency fluctuations. 6. Assessee, therefore, filed ITA No. 589/Hyd/2020 in respect of the additions sustained and Revenue filed ITA No. 96/Hyd/2021 in respect of the relief granted to the assessee by the learned CIT(A). Assessee preferred cross objection supporting the view taken by the Learned CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee. Page 3

LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of expenditure towards currency fluctuations. 6. Assessee, therefore, filed ITA No. 589/Hyd/2020 in respect of the additions sustained and Revenue filed ITA No. 96/Hyd/2021 in respect of the relief granted to the assessee by the learned CIT(A). Assessee preferred cross objection supporting the view taken by the Learned CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee. Page 3

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person 12 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act. 8. Per contra, Ld.DR submitted that in the present case, the search was carried out in the premises

MADHUCON SINO HYDRA JV ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') has been made by the JV on such payments. Therefore, he disallowed the total payments of Rs.70,69,90,560/- made by the JV to its constituents u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act due to no TDS and added the same as income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') has been made by the JV on such payments. Therefore, he disallowed the total payments of Rs.70,69,90,560/- made by the JV to its constituents u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act due to no TDS and added the same as income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly

MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') has been made by the JV on such payments. Therefore, he disallowed the total payments of Rs.70,69,90,560/- made by the JV to its constituents u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act due to no TDS and added the same as income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly

MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1344, 1311 & 1312/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Madhucon Sino Hydro Jv, Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Pan:Aanfm1451G Vs. 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. 2. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. 3. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad. ….Respondents.

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') has been made by the JV on such payments. Therefore, he disallowed the total payments of Rs.70,69,90,560/- made by the JV to its constituents u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act due to no TDS and added the same as income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly