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

58 taxmann.com 78/232 Taxman 270/374 ITR\n645 (Bombay) one of the substantial question which was\nconsidered was whether the tribunal erred in holding that the\nassessee therein was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4)\nwhich was contrary to the circular of the Central Board of Direct\nTaxes No. 10 of 2005. The said question was decided against the\nrevenue

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

58 taxmann.com 78/232 Taxman 270/374 ITR\n645 (Bombay) one of the substantial question which was\nconsidered was whether the tribunal erred in holding that the\nassessee therein was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4)\nwhich was contrary to the circular of the Central Board of Direct\nTaxes No. 10 of 2005. The said question was decided against the\nrevenue

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

58 taxmann.com 78/232 Taxman 270/374 ITR\n645 (Bombay) one of the substantial question which was\nconsidered was whether the tribunal erred in holding that the\nassessee therein was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4)\nwhich was contrary to the circular of the Central Board of Direct\nTaxes No. 10 of 2005. The said question was decided against the\nrevenue

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

58,55,948/- is deleted and disallowance of deduction for Rs. Rs.33,55,988/- is confirmed. The grounds of appeal no 3, 4 and 5 are partly allowed.\n6. 6. In ground of appeal no 2 the appellant has contested that the Assessing Officer erred in adopting the income determined u/s 143(1) of the Act without considering that

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

58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n2.2.1.\nIt was the submission of the Learned Counsel for\nthe Assessee that since the assessee has made a claim of\ndeduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act for the first time in the\nreturn of income filed in response to notice issued\nu/sec.153A

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

58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n\n2.2.1.\nIt was the submission of the Learned Counsel for\nthe Assessee that since the assessee has made a claim of\ndeduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act for the first time in the\nreturn of income filed in response to notice issued

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n2.2.1.\nIt was the submission of the Learned Counsel for\nthe Assessee that since the assessee has made a claim of\ndeduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act for the first time in the\nreturn of income filed in response to notice issued\nu/sec.153A

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

58,33,404/- vide order dated\n31.03.2016 passed u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\n2.2.1.\nIt was the submission of the Learned Counsel for\nthe Assessee that since the assessee has made a claim of\ndeduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act for the first time in the\nreturn of income filed in response to notice issued\nu/sec.153A

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)

TDS Credit of the transferor company to successor or transferee company even though the income of the transferor company is already considered by the successor company. 18.3 The Ld. AO erred in law and facts by not granting any TCS credit vis-à-vis INR 1,29,734/- as claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income

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)

TDS payments, assets, borrowings, and other supporting documents. The assessee submitted partial and complete responses on various dates and also participated in video- conference proceedings on 12.09.2023, furnishing explanations on ICDS and related issues. Since the assessee had reported large 6 Gainsight Software Private Limited value international transactions in respect of provision of software development services, a reference was made

CONCENTRIX CATALYST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

TDS credit amounting to INR 6,360 appearing in the Form 26AS as per the\nOGE dated 07 February 2024 pursuant to the order of Hon'ble CIT(A).\n19. erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act in the impugned order.\n20. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act against the Appellant without

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would

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

TDS. In the absence of any material to the contrary, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.19,630/- is upheld and the ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 54. So far as the alternate claim of the assessee that the inflation in expenses confirmed at Rs.6,98,90,097/- would