KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT

51 SOT 214Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#8489 most cited

What is KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Contracts involving development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, and defect correction periods are not considered simple works contracts and are eligible for deduction under section 80IA.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Also referred to as

KMC Construction Ltd v ACIT · 51 SOT 214 · section 80IA · deduction · infrastructure facility · development · operation · maintenance · works contract

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 33bsection 80ia(4)(i)resulting companyinitial assessment yearsection 288section 80ia(4)going concerndemergerinfrastructure facilitydeduction under section 80iatax benefit

Judgments citing KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT

The Dy. CIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 1621/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…red and maintained and security is also maintained thereafter. So, this is a case of transfer of property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) and Asstt. CIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 336 (Mum.) thus support the stand taken by the assessee. The assessee has executed the AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engg. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 1231/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…red and maintained and security is also maintained thereafter. So, this is a case of transfer of property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) and Asstt. CIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 336 (Mum.) thus support the stand taken by the assessee. The assessee has executed the AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014…

The Dy. CIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2303/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…red and maintained and security is also maintained thereafter. So, this is a case of transfer of property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) and Asstt. CIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 336 (Mum.) thus support the stand taken by the assessee. The assessee has executed the AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014…

The Dy. CIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2302/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…red and maintained and security is also maintained thereafter. So, this is a case of transfer of property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) and Asstt. CIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 336 (Mum.) thus support the stand taken by the assessee. The assessee has executed the AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014…

The ACIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2118/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…red and maintained and security is also maintained thereafter. So, this is a case of transfer of property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) and Asstt. CIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 336 (Mum.) thus support the stand taken by the assessee. The assessee has executed the AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014…

Maytas-Ncc Jv, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1545/Hyd/2017 Acit Circle 8(1) Maytas Ncc-Jv, 2006-07 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 1546/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 1547/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2008-09 1548/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2009-10 494/Hyd.2016 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 1198/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 774/Hyd/2018 Maytas Ncc-Jv, Acit Circle 8(1) 2013-14 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 690/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 80Section 80I

…n and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover. 24. In the case of KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT, 51 SOT 214 (Hyd) (URO) wherein the Tribunal has taken the same view. 25. In the case of Sushee Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 269 & 1165/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 1171/Hyd/2010 dated 16th March, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: " ... The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the contracts inv…

Maytas Ncc Jv, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 690/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1545/Hyd/2017 Acit Circle 8(1) Maytas Ncc-Jv, 2006-07 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 1546/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 1547/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2008-09 1548/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2009-10 494/Hyd.2016 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 1198/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 774/Hyd/2018 Maytas Ncc-Jv, Acit Circle 8(1) 2013-14 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 690/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 80Section 80I

…n and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover. 24. In the case of KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT, 51 SOT 214 (Hyd) (URO) wherein the Tribunal has taken the same view. 25. In the case of Sushee Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 269 & 1165/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 1171/Hyd/2010 dated 16th March, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: " ... The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the contracts inv…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Maytas-Ncc Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1548/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1545/Hyd/2017 Acit Circle 8(1) Maytas Ncc-Jv, 2006-07 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 1546/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 1547/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2008-09 1548/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2009-10 494/Hyd.2016 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 1198/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 774/Hyd/2018 Maytas Ncc-Jv, Acit Circle 8(1) 2013-14 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 690/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 80Section 80I

…n and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover. 24. In the case of KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT, 51 SOT 214 (Hyd) (URO) wherein the Tribunal has taken the same view. 25. In the case of Sushee Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 269 & 1165/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 1171/Hyd/2010 dated 16th March, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: " ... The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the contracts inv…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Maytas Ncc-Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1547/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1545/Hyd/2017 Acit Circle 8(1) Maytas Ncc-Jv, 2006-07 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 1546/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 1547/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2008-09 1548/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2009-10 494/Hyd.2016 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 1198/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 774/Hyd/2018 Maytas Ncc-Jv, Acit Circle 8(1) 2013-14 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 690/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 80Section 80I

…n and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover. 24. In the case of KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT, 51 SOT 214 (Hyd) (URO) wherein the Tribunal has taken the same view. 25. In the case of Sushee Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 269 & 1165/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 1171/Hyd/2010 dated 16th March, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: " ... The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the contracts inv…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Maytas Ncc-Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1546/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1545/Hyd/2017 Acit Circle 8(1) Maytas Ncc-Jv, 2006-07 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 1546/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 1547/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2008-09 1548/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2009-10 494/Hyd.2016 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 1198/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 774/Hyd/2018 Maytas Ncc-Jv, Acit Circle 8(1) 2013-14 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 690/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 80Section 80I

…n and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover. 24. In the case of KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT, 51 SOT 214 (Hyd) (URO) wherein the Tribunal has taken the same view. 25. In the case of Sushee Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 269 & 1165/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 1171/Hyd/2010 dated 16th March, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: " ... The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the contracts inv…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Maytas-Ncc Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1545/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1545/Hyd/2017 Acit Circle 8(1) Maytas Ncc-Jv, 2006-07 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 1546/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 1547/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2008-09 1548/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2009-10 494/Hyd.2016 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 1198/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 774/Hyd/2018 Maytas Ncc-Jv, Acit Circle 8(1) 2013-14 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 690/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 80Section 80I

…n and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover. 24. In the case of KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT, 51 SOT 214 (Hyd) (URO) wherein the Tribunal has taken the same view. 25. In the case of Sushee Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 269 & 1165/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 1171/Hyd/2010 dated 16th March, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: " ... The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the contracts inv…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1)., Hyderabad vs. Maytas-Ncc-Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1198/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1545/Hyd/2017 Acit Circle 8(1) Maytas Ncc-Jv, 2006-07 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 1546/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 1547/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2008-09 1548/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2009-10 494/Hyd.2016 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 1198/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 774/Hyd/2018 Maytas Ncc-Jv, Acit Circle 8(1) 2013-14 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 690/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 80Section 80I

…n and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover. 24. In the case of KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT, 51 SOT 214 (Hyd) (URO) wherein the Tribunal has taken the same view. 25. In the case of Sushee Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 269 & 1165/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 1171/Hyd/2010 dated 16th March, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: " ... The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the contracts inv…

ACIT, Cirlce-14(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Maytas Ncc Jv, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1545/Hyd/2017 Acit Circle 8(1) Maytas Ncc-Jv, 2006-07 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 1546/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 1547/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2008-09 1548/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2009-10 494/Hyd.2016 -Do- -Do- 2010-11 1198/Hyd/2017 -Do- -Do- 2011-12 774/Hyd/2018 Maytas Ncc-Jv, Acit Circle 8(1) 2013-14 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalfm2137K 690/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 80Section 80I

…n and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover. 24. In the case of KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT, 51 SOT 214 (Hyd) (URO) wherein the Tribunal has taken the same view. 25. In the case of Sushee Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in ITA Nos. 269 & 1165/Hyd/2009 and ITA No. 1171/Hyd/2010 dated 16th March, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: " ... The assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 80IA of the Act as the contracts inv…

KMC Construction Ltd. v. ACIT (51 SOT 214) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax