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

section 80IA(13)? 5. Whether CIT(A) is justified in overlooking sub contract with M/s. BGR Mining & Infra Ltd? 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee-AOP filed its Return of Income for Asst. Year 2017-18 on 27.10.2017, computing total income at Rs.11,56,60,835/- and claiming the same as a deduction u/s 80IA

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

TDS under Section 194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can not be extended the activities of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

TDS applicable as per law in the name of the appellant. Further, the JV / Consortia never claimed any deduction under Section 80IA(4

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

TDS under Section 194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can not be extended the activities of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

TDS under Section 194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can not be extended the activities of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD

Section 801A(4), the enterprise should be owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies. Further, Clause (a) makes it clear that a company registered in India, or a consortium of such company registered in India should be owned the undertaking and Clause (b) states that such entity should be entered into agreement with

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

Bench: Us.

Section 80IA(4), the enterprise should be owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies. Further, Clause (a) makes it clear that a company registered in India, or a consortium of such company registered in India should be owned the undertaking and Clause (b) states that such entity should be entered into agreement with

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Section 139(1) of the Act, the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act cannot be allowed. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee. Thus, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 12. In the result

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Section 139(1) of the Act, the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act cannot be allowed. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee. Thus, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 12. In the result

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company e-filed Return of Income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 27.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.18,95,31,020/- under normal provisions and book profit of Rs.4,31,77,24,345/- u/s.115JB of the income tax Act,1961 (“ the Act”). The learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) completed assessment

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

4) of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised in appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.» The above case upholds the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority to entertain the claim u/s. 80lA made for the first time. However, in view of the judgement cited by the appellant

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

4) of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised in appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.» The above case upholds the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority to entertain the claim u/s. 80lA made for the first time. However, in view of the judgement cited by the appellant

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

section 195(2) of the Act. (b) Not appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant that the payments made to recipient/s are not chargeable to tax in India and accordingly, taxes were not liable to be deducted on the same and have erred in concluding that the Appellant is required to deduct TDS on payment for business support service expenses

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

4 Gainsight Software Private Limited • XS CAD India Private Limited • CG VAK Software & Exports Limited • Daffodil Software Private Limited • Great Software Laboratory Private Limited • L&T Infotech Limited • Nihilent Limited • Robosoft Technologies Limited • Wipro Limited b. not including following comparable selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation for software development and support services: • Yudiz Solutions Private Limited

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 80IA(8) and mandates of judicial authorities. 4b. By rejecting the comparable market rate for procurement of power from Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) and determining the Arm’s Length Price at Rs. 2.97/- per unit, being the median of the various sale prices charged by the power unit to the independent third parties. 4c. By not appreciating

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

TDS was made on such amounts. During the asst. proceedings, only self-made Vouchers were shown to have been produced and some of the amounts were also used for payment as expenses against public policy such as penalty, gratuitous payments etc. For the said reasons the AO disallowed the entire a mounts of Rs. 15,83,00,000/-, treating

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

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

TDS was made on such amounts. During the asst. proceedings, only self-made Vouchers were shown to have been produced and some of the amounts were also used for payment as expenses against public policy such as penalty, gratuitous payments etc. For the said reasons the AO disallowed the entire a mounts of Rs. 15,83,00,000/-, treating

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

TDS was made on such amounts. During the asst. proceedings, only self-made Vouchers were shown to have been produced and some of the amounts were also used for payment as expenses against public policy such as penalty, gratuitous payments etc. For the said reasons the AO disallowed the entire a mounts of Rs. 15,83,00,000/-, treating