ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

Section 195 would not be applicable to the commission payments made by assessee to non-resident agent who has not done any service in India and as such income is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act as there is no requirement to do any TDS u/s. 195. the disallowance

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowance of\nthe claim of deduction of the assessee company of Rs. 24,35,05,411/-\nraised under section 801A of the Act in respect of profits derived from\npower generation units.\n20.\nShri. Narendra Naik, Ld. CIT-DR, relied on the assessment order\nregarding declining of the claim for deduction under section 801A of the\nAct of the assessee

REASONING GLOBAL E-APPLICATIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Reasoning Global E- Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Application Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aadcr6701P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing It Enabled Electronic Commerce Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of Rs.9,52,71,232/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited An Amount Of Rs.1,02,18,116/- Towards Web Hosting Charges. From The Bills/Invoices Produced For The Expenditure So Claimed, The Page 1 Of 19

section 195, the provisions of DTAA between India and US, the Assessing Officer held that the TDS provisions would be applicable to the assessee. Relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer made disallowance

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

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

disallowance of business support service expense of INR 75,91,57,538 for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS') under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 2.2 Additionally, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and contrary to the law, the Ld. AO erred. and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in: 3 ADP Private Limited

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSPIRA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAB

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Nspira Management Circle-16(1) Services Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

disallowed in view of Section 195 read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 4. In response

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section in the case of appellant is incorrect and therefore, the ground no. 2(ii) is allowed accordingly. The ground no.2(iii) pertaining to invocation of Rule 11 VA becomes academic as the relief has already been granted on ground no. 2(i) and 2(ii) therefore there is no need of adjudication to ground no. 2 (iii) accordingly. Further

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)

195 of the Act was barred by limitation on 31/12/2010. However, the aforesaid objections of the assessee company did not find favour with the AO who rejected the same. 7. Thereafter, the AO passed a draft assessment order (served upon the assessee on 05/01/2012) as per the mandate of section 144C(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee company

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

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 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, in the light of the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in 195 ITD 142 (Mum), was of the opinion that the said clause (iv) would come into operation when the Tax Auditor had suggested for a disallowance

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 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, in the light of the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in 195 ITD 142 (Mum), was of the opinion that the said clause (iv) would come into operation when the Tax Auditor had suggested for a disallowance

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, in the light of the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in 195 ITD 142 (Mum), was of the opinion that the said clause (iv) would come into operation when the Tax Auditor had suggested for a disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. GAIAN SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

Section 195 are not attracted merely because the payments are in the nature of 'reimbursement' of expenses. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the payments on 'Reimbursement' of expenses even though the bills were raised in lumpsum figures on regular intervals instead of exact amount of expenditure incurred showing that it is not mere reimbursement

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in light of the various arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee along with certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Akry Organics Pvt. Ltd Vs. CPC (supra) and also the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Rashmi Infrastructure

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in light of the various arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee along with certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Akry Organics Pvt. Ltd Vs. CPC (supra) and also the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Rashmi Infrastructure

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1401/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sheladia Associates Inc. Vs. Adit (International Secunderabad Taxation)-2 Pan : Aafcs7792F Hyderabad

195 of the Act. The assessee challenged the proposed disallowance before the DRP and also furnished some additional details and supporting evidence on which, the DRP called for a remand report from the AO. After considering the remand report, the DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee and consequently, final assessment order was passed by the AO, making

TOSHIBA TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,RUDRARAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-81), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं / Ita Tp No.103/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Toshiba Transmission & Distribution Vs. Acit, Circle-8(1) Systems (India) Private Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaect6883F] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Kranthi,Ar & Shri Kc Devdas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr

section 195 of the Act and hence there is no loss to revenue. 10. The learned DR relied upon the orders of the DRP and the learned Assessing Officer. 11. The second issue which the assessee agitated before us is regarding disallowance

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.

disallowed this amount on the ground that TDS has not been deducted ignoring the fact that the amount was deposited as per the Court Directions and Your Appellant is not aware of the persons who have to be paid at the time of deposit. Hence, the question of TDS on such payment does not arise. CIT (A) confirmed the addition

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.

disallowed this amount on the ground that TDS has not been deducted ignoring the fact that the amount was deposited as per the Court Directions and Your Appellant is not aware of the persons who have to be paid at the time of deposit. Hence, the question of TDS on such payment does not arise. CIT (A) confirmed the addition

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.

disallowed this amount on the ground that TDS has not been deducted ignoring the fact that the amount was deposited as per the Court Directions and Your Appellant is not aware of the persons who have to be paid at the time of deposit. Hence, the question of TDS on such payment does not arise. CIT (A) confirmed the addition