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)

Section 194J of the Act, and also failed to file relevant ITR filed by the auditor, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. towards disallowance

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:

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), therefore, the AO has rightly disallowed

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

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

194J(1) and as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which got amended with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 wherein rent and royalty are introduced. Being so, the assessee is liable for deduction of TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

194J(1) and as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which got amended with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 wherein rent and royalty are introduced. Being so, the assessee is liable for deduction of TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

194J(1) and as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which got amended with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 wherein rent and royalty are introduced. Being so, the assessee is liable for deduction of TDS on the royalty payment. However, the Special Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) held that the word "payable" used in section

CHELIKAMMUNICATIONS,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), TIRUPATI., TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194J of the Act. However, the assessee deposited an amount of Rs.68,377/- only into the credit of the central government, out of TDS of Rs.22,37,265/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO treated the balance amount on which TDS has been made but not remitted to ITA No.487/Hyd/2023 3 the credit of the central government to the extent

INTEGRATED GAS CONTROLS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

194J, but failed to file bills for expenses and agreement if any with the party. Therefore, made addition of Rs.31,85,557/- u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Similarly, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to M/s Karamchand Linganna Komireddy. The assessee has also paid Rs.2,19,144/- to M/s Magostech Information

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. ANJANEYA RAVI VARMA PRASAD KANTHATE, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section Income reflected which in Form 26AS received 1 MNR Educational Trust 192A 11,18,308 2 Hyderabad Race Club 194BB 1,27,200 3 ECHS Station HQ 194J 5,20,940 Secunderabad Total 17,66,448 3.1 Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A), the learned CIT (A) in the ex-parte order passed

ANJANEYA RAVI VARMA PRASAD KANTHATE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section Income reflected which in Form 26AS received 1 MNR Educational Trust 192A 11,18,308 2 Hyderabad Race Club 194BB 1,27,200 3 ECHS Station HQ 194J 5,20,940 Secunderabad Total 17,66,448 3.1 Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A), the learned CIT (A) in the ex-parte order passed

AP TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 A.P Tourism Development Vs. Dy. Cit Corporation Ltd, Circle 1(1) Vijayawada Hyderabad Pan:Aadca9817H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate R. Mohan Kumar Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 13/02/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An A.P State Government Corporation Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Established With The Main Objective Of Developing Tourism Infrastructure In The State Of Andhra Pradesh. The Corporation Is A State Govt. Company Since 1976. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.9,95,84,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Delivered Electronically To The Page 1 Of 6

disallowed the excess claim of depreciation of Rs.56,04,368/-. The Assessing Officer further noted from the 26AS statement that the assessee has received the following amount during the year: S.No Description of the Section under which TDS Amount of income income received is made by the deductor received 1 Rental/lease 194IB 2,27,57,627 income 2 Interest 194A