DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

132 of the Act. To this extent we reverse the findings\nof the learned CIT(A) for these A.Ys.2014-2015, 2015-2016\nand 2016-2017.\n8.3.\nHaving said so, let us come to the issue on hand.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act\nin respect of profit derived from development of\ninfrastructure projects. There

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

132 of the Act. To this extent we reverse the findings\nof the learned CIT(A) for these A.Ys.2014-2015, 2015-2016\nand 2016-2017.\n\n8.3.\nHaving said so, let us come to the issue on hand.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act\nin respect of profit derived from development of\ninfrastructure projects. There

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

TDS under Section 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

132 of the Act. To this extent we reverse the findings\nof the learned CIT(A) for these A.Ys.2014-2015, 2015-2016\nand 2016-2017.\n8.3.\nHaving said so, let us come to the issue on hand.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act\nin respect of profit derived from development of\ninfrastructure projects. There

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

TDS under Section 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

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

TDS under Section 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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

132 of the Act. To this extent we reverse the findings\nof the learned CIT(A) for these A.Ys.2014-2015, 2015-2016\nand 2016-2017.\n8.3.\nHaving said so, let us come to the issue on hand.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act\nin respect of profit derived from development of\ninfrastructure projects. There

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

TDS details, which the assessee duly furnished. After reviewing\nthe submitted details, a show cause notice, dated 20.12.2019, was\nissued, requiring the assessee to explain why the deduction u/s 80IA\nshould not be disallowed. Thereafter, assessee furnished his reply.\nAfter verification of the submissions made by the assessee, Assessing\nOfficer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act\ndt.30.12.2019

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

4), Hyderabad. These cases were centralized with the same AO under section 127 of the Act. Thus, in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer of the searched party and appellant was the same jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Further, the present assessments for all the three assessment years are framed under Section 153C of the Act, in pursuant to search

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

4), Hyderabad. These cases were centralized with the same AO under section 127 of the Act. Thus, in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer of the searched party and appellant was the same jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Further, the present assessments for all the three assessment years are framed under Section 153C of the Act, in pursuant to search

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

4), Hyderabad. These cases were centralized with the same AO under section 127 of the Act. Thus, in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer of the searched party and appellant was the same jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Further, the present assessments for all the three assessment years are framed under Section 153C of the Act, in pursuant to search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

132(4) or u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as\nwell as statement made in the affidavit is contrary to the actual\nfacts, then the facts which are duly supported by the undisputed\nevidence in the shape of registered sale deed are required to be\nconsidered and not the statement which is found to be incorrect\nand contrary

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

132(4) or u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as\nwell as statement made in the affidavit is contrary to the actual\nfacts, then the facts which are duly supported by the undisputed\nevidence in the shape of registered sale deed are required to be\nconsidered and not the statement which is found to be incorrect\nand contrary

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 132(4) of the Act and thus, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.50 lakhs towards donation from undisclosed income. 58. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition. 59. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition towards donation from

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustifed\nunless the contents are independently proved against the THE PARTY\n42\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132. The fresh claim so made was rejected by the AO and upheld by the ld.CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal, following the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaya Steel (supra) held that the assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act is not a denovo assessment and therefore

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

132. The fresh claim so made was rejected by the AO and upheld by the ld.CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal, following the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaya Steel (supra) held that the assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act is not a denovo assessment and therefore

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

section 132(4A) would\nin any case not be applicable to a third party from whose\npossession such papers and documents have not been found\nby the Revenue. The Revenue has further relied upon the\nstatements of Shri Sureshbhai and Shri Deepak Mehta partners\nof M/s Gokul Corporation. We find merit in the contention of the\nlearned counsel that such