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)

30% disallowance on sum of Rs. 13,79,215/-, paid to subcontractor Shankarapally. It was the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that, the above two amounts represent the outstanding trade payables to the subcontractors towards expenditure incurred in the earlier financial years and therefore, the same cannot be considered for disallowance under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

30% of sum payable on which TDS has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid by the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not deducted TDS on the differential amount and the Assessing Officer rightly invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards exempt income on capital gains and dividend @ Rs. 16,36,95,597/- on account of long term capital gain and Rs. 30

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards exempt income on capital gains and dividend @ Rs. 16,36,95,597/- on account of long term capital gain and Rs. 30

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards exempt income on capital gains and dividend @ Rs. 16,36,95,597/- on account of long term capital gain and Rs. 30

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.54,22,428/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.684/Hyd/2020 – A.Y. 2017-18 31. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.54,22,428/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.684/Hyd/2020 – A.Y. 2017-18 31. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.54,22,428/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.684/Hyd/2020 – A.Y. 2017-18 31. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.54,22,428/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.684/Hyd/2020 – A.Y. 2017-18 31. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.54,22,428/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 30. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.684/Hyd/2020 – A.Y. 2017-18 31. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential