JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

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)

38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS or justification for non-deduction

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)

38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS or justification for non-deduction

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)

38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS or justification for non-deduction

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

TDS. He was of the opinion that the services rendered to the assessee by non-resident Equant fall under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and therefore, the provisions of section 195 of the Act are attracted. 7.4 We find that the CIT (A), at Para 8.5 of his order has brought out that Equant is a German Company

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

TDS. He was of the opinion that the services rendered to the assessee by non-resident Equant fall under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and therefore, the provisions of section 195 of the Act are attracted. 7.4 We find that the CIT (A), at Para 8.5 of his order has brought out that Equant is a German Company

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

TDS. He was of the opinion that the services rendered to the assessee by non-resident Equant fall under section 9(1)(i) of the Act and therefore, the provisions of section 195 of the Act are attracted. 7.4 We find that the CIT (A), at Para 8.5 of his order has brought out that Equant is a German Company

SRI RAMA AGRI GENETICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining ROC charges paid of Rs. 4,60,131/- for increase in authorised capital of the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the same is in the nature of revenue expenditure or in the alternative should be treated

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE PRASAD JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

TDS as mentioned in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act r.w.s. first Proviso of Section 201(1) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has also held that in case the payee referred to in the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act and had taken into account such return of income, then the assessee (Payee) shall

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent