आयकर अपील(cid:547)य Ûयाया(cid:876)धकरण म(cid:581), हैदराबाद ‘बी’ ब(cid:581)च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, माननीय उपाÚय¢ एव ं (cid:302)ी मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G., HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.129/Hyd/2020 (िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/ Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Asst. Commissioner of Vs. IL & FS Engineering and Income Tax Construction Company Central Circle – 3(2) Limited (Formerly Maytas Hyderabad Infra Limited Hyderabad PAN: AABCM3722F (अपीलाथ(cid:334)/ Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/ Respondent)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1886/Hyd/2019 (िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/ Assessment Year: 2008-09)

IL & FS Engineering and Vs. Deputy. Commissioner of Construction Company Income Tax Limited (Formerly Maytas Central Circle – 3(2)

Infra Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN: AABCM3722F करदाता का ঋितिनिध(cid:533)/ : Shri K.C.Devdas, C.A.

Assessee Represented by राज(cid:738) का ঋितिनिध(cid:533)/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Department Represented by CIT-DR

सुनवाई समा(cid:593) होने की ितिथ/ : 17.12.2025

Date of Conclusion of Hearing

घोषणा की तारीख/ : 11.02.2026

Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”]-11, Hyderabad dated 30.09.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09.

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition towards interest on mobilization advances.

2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194A are applicable in the case as the assessee has paid the amount and the interest on the mobilization advances was recovered by the contractee from the running bills before releasing the contract charges to the account of the assessee.

3. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the interest recovered on mobilization advances by the contractee, if not offered to income will be loss to the revenue.

4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition towards non deduction of TDS on transport charges of raw materials.

5. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the suppliers have acted as agents of the assessee for transporting the goods to assessee. That the suppliers have collected freight charges from the assessee and paid to the transporters.

6. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the amount of freight charges have been shown by the suppliers in their invoices separately which the assessee has padi to them.

7. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that separate payments as per invoices were made by the assessee towards freight charges and raw materials.

8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds(s) or add a new ground which may be necessary.

3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad [CIT(A)] in sustaining/restricting the additions made under the following head is wholly unsustainable both on facts and in law.

2. The order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the additions under the respective heads reflected under Ground No.1 is totally contrary to the facts and evidence on record as the entire expenditure incurred is deductible u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The CIT(A) in respect of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) at Rs.3,99,29,316/- erred in giving a direction to verify and allow the claim instead of deleting the entire amount on the basis of evidence to support its expenditure.

4. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant, M/s IL&FS Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd.(formerly known as Maytas Infra Ltd.), Hyderabad is engaged in the business of ci