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

68,480/- with the refund claim of Rs.19,07,250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify large refund claims and contract receipts or fees. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act on 5 ITA.No.670/Hyd./2025 various dates and called-upon

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

Section 194C\nof the Act. Also, it was the claim of the assessee company that\namong the other expenses, some of the major expenses\naggregating to Rs.2,37,49,913.69 were incurred towards expenses\nthat were not liable for deduction of tax at source, viz. (i). travel\nexpenses of staff; (ii). travel fare (air); (iii). travel fare (train

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,905/- and secondly, the relief of Rs.44,12,893/- on account of non-applicability of TDS on interest to bank. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has done error in granting double relief to the assessee on account of interest to bank, hence, atleast relief on one occasion should be set aside

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,905/- and secondly, the relief of Rs.44,12,893/- on account of non-applicability of TDS on interest to bank. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has done error in granting double relief to the assessee on account of interest to bank, hence, atleast relief on one occasion should be set aside

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68,905/- and secondly, the relief of Rs.44,12,893/- on account of non-applicability of TDS on interest to bank. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has done error in granting double relief to the assessee on account of interest to bank, hence, atleast relief on one occasion should be set aside

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

194C is applicable to\npayments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies\n(including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting)\nto advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to\nmedia owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can\nnot be extended the activities of the assessee.\n\n14.\nIt was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

194C is applicable to\npayments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies\n(including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting)\nto advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to\nmedia owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can\nnot be extended the activities of the assessee.\n\n14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

194C is applicable to\npayments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies\n(including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting)\nto advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to\nmedia owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can\nnot be extended the activities of the assessee.\n14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular, the\nAct

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

194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can not be extended the activities of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD vs. VISION VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

194C) is Rupees 265182735/-thus the Page 3 of 6 assessee company offered less income of Rupees1,12,68,403/-( 265182735/ - 25,39,14,332) which requires to be added back to the total income.” 8. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the merits of the case had held that the above said order cannot be passed under section