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

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

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

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

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

Section 80- IA of the\nAct and is eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act.\nWe observe that Ld. CIT(A) undertook a detailed analysis of the scope of\nwork undertaken by the assessee and the various risks and\nresponsibilities undertaken by the assessee and then came to conclusion\nthat assessee qualifies

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

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

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

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

Section 80IA(4), the enterprise should be\nowned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such\ncompanies.\nFurther, Clause (a) makes it clear that a company registered in India,\nor a consortium of such company registered in India should be owned\nthe undertaking and Clause (b) states that such entity should be\nentered into agreement with

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

Section 80IA(4), the enterprise should be\nowned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such\ncompanies.\nFurther, Clause (a) makes it clear that a company registered in India,\nor a consortium of such company registered in India should be owned\nthe undertaking and Clause (b) states that such entity should be\nentered into agreement with

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-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

Section 80IA(4), the enterprise should be\nowned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such\ncompanies.\nFurther, Clause (a) makes it clear that a company registered in India,\nor a consortium of such company registered in India should be owned\nthe undertaking and Clause (b) states that such entity should be\nentered into agreement with

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

Section 80IA(4), the enterprise should be\nowned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such\ncompanies.\nFurther, Clause (a) makes it clear that a company registered in India,\nor a consortium of such company registered in India should be owned\nthe undertaking and Clause (b) states that such entity should be\nentered into agreement with

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