BHARGAVI MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is regretted to note that you have neither filed your return of income for the AY u/s 139 of the Act nor in response to the notice u/s 148.” 7. The ld.AR further submitted that the reasons for re-opening of the assessment are available at page 2 of the assessment

OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) P. LTD. MAHABUBNAGAR (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SAINT GOBAIN VETROTEX INDIA LTD),MAHABUBNAGAR DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2004-05 Owens Corning Industries Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (India) Private Limited Of Income Tax, (Previously Known As Saint Circle 3(1), Gobain Vetrotex India Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacv9858N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2004-05 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 21.12.2015 In Case No.0217/Dcit, Cir.3(1)/2014-15/ Cit(A)-4/Hyd/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’].

241. (Del) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had occasion to consider the disallowance of royalty by TPO and held that if the expenditure has been incurred or laid out for the purposes of business it is no concern of the TPO to disallow the same on any extraneous reasons. In the case of Ericsson India

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 1 Income-tax Officer-Ward

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 1 Income-tax Officer-Ward

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 1 Income-tax Officer-Ward

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 1 Income-tax Officer-Ward

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 1 Income-tax Officer-Ward

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 1 Income-tax Officer-Ward

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 1 Income-tax Officer-Ward

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 1 Income-tax Officer-Ward

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

241 I.T.R. 865 (Bom), which was\nrendered by taking note of the principle laid down by the\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering\nWorks (P) Ltd (supra) to the effect that in the\nreassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither\nclaim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in\nthe original return. According

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS on Interest paid on CCDs to foreign company to be made or not. While answering that question Hon'ble AAR held interest payment on CCDs up to date of conversion to be nothing but interest paid on money advanced and such interest payment gets covered under Section 2(28) of Income Tax. Hon'ble authority also held that interest

WATERMARK RESIDENCY LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS on Interest paid on CCDs to foreign company to be made or not. While answering that question Hon'ble AAR held interest payment on CCDs up to date of conversion to be nothing but interest paid on money advanced and such interest payment gets covered under Section 2(28) of Income Tax. Hon'ble authority also held that interest

WATERMARKE RESIDENCY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS on Interest paid on CCDs to foreign company to be made or not. While answering that question Hon'ble AAR held interest payment on CCDs up to date of conversion to be nothing but interest paid on money advanced and such interest payment gets covered under Section 2(28) of Income Tax. Hon'ble authority also held that interest

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

241 I.T.R. 865 (Bom), which was\nrendered by taking note of the principle laid down by the\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering\nWorks (P) Ltd (supra) to the effect that in the\nreassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither\nclaim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in\nthe original return. According

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

241 I.T.R. 865 (Bom), which was\nrendered by taking note of the principle laid down by the\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering\nWorks (P) Ltd (supra) to the effect that in the\nreassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither\nclaim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in\nthe original return. According

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

241 I.T.R. 865 (Bom), which was\nrendered by taking note of the principle laid down by the\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering\nWorks (P) Ltd (supra) to the effect that in the\nreassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither\nclaim nor be allowed a deduction that was not claimed in\nthe original return. According

MENZIES BOBBA GROUND HANDLING SERVICES P. LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

241 (Del), is applicable on all fours and for the sake of ready reference, we deem it just an appropriate to extract the relevant portion here under,- Page 4 of 10 ITA Nos. 863 & 864/Hyd/2016 “20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative

MENZIES BOBBA GROUND HANDLING SERVICES P. LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

241 (Del), is applicable on all fours and for the sake of ready reference, we deem it just an appropriate to extract the relevant portion here under,- Page 4 of 10 ITA Nos. 863 & 864/Hyd/2016 “20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative