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

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

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

801A(4) of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed.” 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 6.1. First, we will deal with the additional grounds raised by the assessee. 7. Before us, the ld.AR submitted that the assessment order was passed

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

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

801A(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the\ndisallowance of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Act is confirmed on merits.\nThus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are\ndismissed.\nExecution of the project through/by JV constituents and sub-\ncontractors:\n7.23 Alternatively, even otherwise, the assessee is not entitled to claim\ndeduction u/s.801A(4

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

801A(4) of the Act.\n\n7.9 At this juncture, it is important to note that there is a clear difference\nand distinction between the terms \"developer\" and \"contractor\". Further,\nnormally, any \"works contract\" awarded by the Government to a\ncontractor by way of a tender process would fall under the ambit of the\ncontractor rather than developer. This issue

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

801A(4) of the Act.\n\n7.9 At this juncture, it is important to note that there is a clear difference\nand distinction between the terms \"developer\" and \"contractor\". Further,\nnormally, any \"works contract\" awarded by the Government to a\ncontractor by way of a tender process would fall under the ambit of the\ncontractor rather than developer. This issue

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

801A vide Finance Act 2007)\nwhich was introduced to unambiguously explain that\nonly those enterprises that have entered development\nagreement with Central or State or Local authorities and\ninvest their own funds to develop such facilities will\nonly be eligible for benefit of deduction.\n\n6.\nThe appellant craves leave to amend or alter any\nground or add any other

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

801A vide Finance Act 2007)\nwhich was introduced to unambiguously explain that\nonly those enterprises that have entered development\nagreement with Central or State or Local authorities and\ninvest their own funds to develop such facilities will\nonly be eligible for benefit of deduction.\n6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any\nground or add any other grounds

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

801A vide Finance Act 2007)\nwhich was introduced to unambiguously explain that\nonly those enterprises that have entered development\nagreement with Central or State or Local authorities and\ninvest their own funds to develop such facilities will\nonly be eligible for benefit of deduction.\n6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any\nground or add any other grounds

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

801A vide Finance Act 2007)\nwhich was introduced to unambiguously explain that\nonly those enterprises that have entered development\nagreement with Central or State or Local authorities and\ninvest their own funds to develop such facilities will\nonly be eligible for benefit of deduction.\n6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any\nground or add any other grounds

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

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

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

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

801A(4) of the Act of Rs.7,88,79,105/-in respect of profits and gains derived from the business of development of eligible infrastructure facility. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234A of the Act. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

801A(4) of the Act of Rs.7,88,79,105/-in respect of profits and gains derived from the business of development of eligible infrastructure facility. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234A of the Act. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

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

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

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision