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

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

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

41 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV relating to the project for approval of AAI etc. which all support the fact that the assessee undefined is in the instant facts is a "developer" within the meaning of Section 80-IA of the Act and is eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act. We observe that

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

41) FROM KM 1+800 TO KM 28+000 AND 33+800 TO 82+800-(SPK & CO-KMC JV\n15\nREHABILIATATION AND UPGRADATION OF NH 42(OLD NH-205)FROM KIA 134/000 (OLD CHAINAGE 58/0 KM TO 202/050(OLD CHAINNAGE KM 126/0) MUDIGUBBA TO ANANTAPURAM DIST. BORDER SECTION) TO TWO LANE WITH PAVED SHOULDERS INCLUDING 4 LANING

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

TDS details show that the assessee is the subcontractor ii. Unsecured Loans include mobilization advances and these are all work contract receipts. iii. Clause 10(a) of the Tax Audit report describes the nature of the business of the assessee as a 'Civil Contractor' iv. In the P&L account, 'Revenue from Operations' reflects 'Work Contract Receipts'. 18. He submitted

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

TDS details show that the assessee is the subcontractor ii. Unsecured Loans include mobilization advances and these are all work contract receipts. iii. Clause 10(a) of the Tax Audit report describes the nature of the business of the assessee as a 'Civil Contractor' iv. In the P&L account, 'Revenue from Operations' reflects 'Work Contract Receipts'. 18. He submitted

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)

41,90,848/-, although the assessee claims to have deducted TDS on payments wherever applicable, but on perusal of the relevant ledger accounts, we find that, although the assessee has deducted TDS on payments made to subcontractors, Shankarapally, but failed to deduct TDS on remaining unpaid amount of Rs. 19,66,000/-, which is evident from the ledger account furnished

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)

41,90,848/-, although the assessee claims to have deducted TDS on payments wherever applicable, but on perusal of the relevant ledger accounts, we find that, although the assessee has deducted TDS on payments made to subcontractors, Shankarapally, but failed to deduct TDS on remaining unpaid amount of Rs. 19,66,000/-, which is evident from the ledger account furnished

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)

41,90,848/-, although the assessee claims to have deducted TDS on payments wherever applicable, but on perusal of the relevant ledger accounts, we find that, although the assessee has deducted TDS on payments made to subcontractors, Shankarapally, but failed to deduct TDS on remaining unpaid amount of Rs. 19,66,000/-, which is evident from the ledger account furnished

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

TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 645/Hyd/2020, wherein the findings of the learned CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was restored to the file