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)

194C of the Act in respect of freight and forwarding charges, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the A.O. to disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16,88,379/-, the assessee claims that, it has deducted

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

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 52,50,500/- towards printing & stationery . 38. The Ld AO erred in provoking the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) without appreciating the fact that payments made are not covered by provisions of chapter XVII-B of the Act. 39. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 52,50,500/- towards printing & stationery . 38. The Ld AO erred in provoking the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) without appreciating the fact that payments made are not covered by provisions of chapter XVII-B of the Act. 39. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that

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 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, either in the ITR of the assessee are in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer failed to verify the above three issues in light of relevant facts which render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Therefore, called-upon the 7 ITA.No.670/Hyd./2025 assessee to file

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

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

disallowance of subcontract expenditure under Section 40a(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C of the Act. 7

M/S COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

7. That on facts and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance made u/s. 43B of Rs 25,35,314/- towards APGST, VAT, ESI, Professional Tax Payable without considering the facts of the case which is not correct and not justified. Hence, the disallowance may please be deleted. 8. That the Appellant craves leave

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB (I) LTD,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

7. That on facts and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance made u/s. 43B of Rs 25,35,314/- towards APGST, VAT, ESI, Professional Tax Payable without considering the facts of the case which is not correct and not justified. Hence, the disallowance may please be deleted. 8. That the Appellant craves leave

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

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

7 submitted that, it has satisfied all the three conditions provided under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, for claiming deduction towards profits derived from eligible project. The appellant further contended that the work has been awarded to M/s. HCC-MEIL- BHEL (JV) in terms of agreement dated 02-12-2008, but the civil work in the project

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.

7 1004 & 1005/Hyd/2018 receipts received from the contractee to its constituents without retaining any portion of the profit. Hence, it is the contention of the Ld. AR that the payment made by JV to its constituents is not in the nature of sub-contract and the provisions of section 194C is not applicable to the assessee. We found that

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.

7 1004 & 1005/Hyd/2018 receipts received from the contractee to its constituents without retaining any portion of the profit. Hence, it is the contention of the Ld. AR that the payment made by JV to its constituents is not in the nature of sub-contract and the provisions of section 194C is not applicable to the assessee. We found that

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.

7 1004 & 1005/Hyd/2018 receipts received from the contractee to its constituents without retaining any portion of the profit. Hence, it is the contention of the Ld. AR that the payment made by JV to its constituents is not in the nature of sub-contract and the provisions of section 194C is not applicable to the assessee. We found that

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.

7 1004 & 1005/Hyd/2018 receipts received from the contractee to its constituents without retaining any portion of the profit. Hence, it is the contention of the Ld. AR that the payment made by JV to its constituents is not in the nature of sub-contract and the provisions of section 194C is not applicable to the assessee. We found that

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE PLOCE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 194C are applicable at the time of payment or at the time of making credit to the account. In this case, the assessee has neither measured the work-in-progress nor the contractor has raised the bill and the assessee has made the provisions on estimation basis. The assessee has submitted that neither it had made the payment

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.

7 years and with fine. 2. It has come to notice that various State Development Authorities, the Housing Boards, Public Works Department, etc., acquire immovable property from the public for the purpose of their developmental activities. Huge amounts are disbursed on behalf of these departments as payments of compensation for land acquired including considerable amount of interest on excess compensation

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.

7 years and with fine. 2. It has come to notice that various State Development Authorities, the Housing Boards, Public Works Department, etc., acquire immovable property from the public for the purpose of their developmental activities. Huge amounts are disbursed on behalf of these departments as payments of compensation for land acquired including considerable amount of interest on excess compensation

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.

7 years and with fine. 2. It has come to notice that various State Development Authorities, the Housing Boards, Public Works Department, etc., acquire immovable property from the public for the purpose of their developmental activities. Huge amounts are disbursed on behalf of these departments as payments of compensation for land acquired including considerable amount of interest on excess compensation