7 HES Infra Private Limited PNC Constructions Co Ltd. v. DCIT

144 ITD 577Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16739 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing 7 HES Infra Private Limited PNC Constructions Co Ltd. v. DCIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hes Infra Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 185/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…pf I1AT, Visakhapatnam in case of Transtroy (India) Ltd, (supra), whose decision is very much binding on the AO, the assesee made citation of the decision of ITAT, Agra, in the case of 7 HES Infra Private Limited PNC Constructions Co Ltd Vs DCIT reported in 144 ITD 577, where the assessee was constituent in JV with M/s NCC and project agreements were between the State Government and JV/Consortia, the deduction claimed by assessee as constituent of JV/Consortia, was held to be allowable. The appellant also referred to the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Ratna JV Vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), H…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hes Infra Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 184/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…pf I1AT, Visakhapatnam in case of Transtroy (India) Ltd, (supra), whose decision is very much binding on the AO, the assesee made citation of the decision of ITAT, Agra, in the case of 7 HES Infra Private Limited PNC Constructions Co Ltd Vs DCIT reported in 144 ITD 577, where the assessee was constituent in JV with M/s NCC and project agreements were between the State Government and JV/Consortia, the deduction claimed by assessee as constituent of JV/Consortia, was held to be allowable. The appellant also referred to the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Ratna JV Vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), H…

B S R & Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1485/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. B.S.R & Co. V. A.C.I.T Circle – 11(2) Lodha Excellus, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Apollo Mills Compound, M.K. Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaafb 9852 F (Appellant) (Respondent) A.C.I.T Circle – 11(2) V. M/S. B.S.R & Co. Room No. 479, 4Th Floor Lodha Excellus, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai-400 020 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaafb 9852 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arijit Chakravarty & Shri Abhishek Tilak Department By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 40

…incurred for the purpose of business but only made observation that proper bills and vouchers were not furnished. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of PNC construction Co. Ltd., v. DCIT [144 ITD 577] and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Vallbh Glass Works Ltd., [38 taxmann.com 177] in support of his contentions. 9. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on. On a perusal…

ACIT 11(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr & Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1068/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. B.S.R & Co. V. A.C.I.T Circle – 11(2) Lodha Excellus, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Apollo Mills Compound, M.K. Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaafb 9852 F (Appellant) (Respondent) A.C.I.T Circle – 11(2) V. M/S. B.S.R & Co. Room No. 479, 4Th Floor Lodha Excellus, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai-400 020 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aaafb 9852 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arijit Chakravarty & Shri Abhishek Tilak Department By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 40

…incurred for the purpose of business but only made observation that proper bills and vouchers were not furnished. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of PNC construction Co. Ltd., v. DCIT [144 ITD 577] and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Vallbh Glass Works Ltd., [38 taxmann.com 177] in support of his contentions. 9. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on. On a perusal…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Ltu), Bangalore

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

ITA 1063/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibicen K. Mathew, CIT(DR)

…n that even in the absence of some of bills of certain assets, disallowance of depreciation on total assets cannot be made, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of ACIT v. Jay Engineering Works, 113 ITR 389 and PNC Construction Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, 144 ITD 577. Page 10 of 12 11. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has contended that when the assessee claims depreciation over the fixed assets, the onus is upon him to produce the relevant invoices with regard to his purchase and if he fails to do so, the AO can disallow depreciation thereon, because depreciation can only be allowed if the assessee owns a pa…

7 HES Infra Private Limited PNC Constructions Co Ltd. v. DCIT (144 ITD 577) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax