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

capital or by availing finance from banks or other financial institutions. On other hand, as admitted by the assessee itself, in order to implement the project, initially, the assessee received mobilisation advance @5% of project cost from the Government. The details of mobilisation advance received by the assessee during the FY 2005-06 relevant to the impugned

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

capital or\nby availing finance from banks or other financial institutions. On other\nhand, as admitted by the assessee itself, in order to implement the\nproject, initially, the assessee received mobilisation advance @5% of\nproject cost from the Government. The details of mobilisation advance\nreceived by the assessee during the FY 2005-06 relevant to the impugned

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

194C of the Act. Filing of return of income by the sub-contractors is not within the domain of the assessee and beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, non-furnishing of return of income by the sub-contractors is not a ground for disbelieving or doubting the genuineness of the payments made by the assessee. Since the assessee

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024

194C of the Act which implies that there is an contract- subcontractor relationship between the appellant and M/s. HCC Ltd. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant is not even constituent of the JV M/s. HCC-MEIL-BHEL and no direct agreement was entered between the appellant and Govt. of Andhra Pradesh for execution of said project. Accordingly, the above

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADINENI SITARAMAIAH, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Us:

gain is liable to be quashed. The appellant has relied upon various judicial pronouncements. These 4 additional grounds of appeal are taken up for adjudication together. The reasons for which the case was picked up for limited scrutiny are as follows: “Reasons: Large payments made u/s 194C to persons who have not filed return of income. The assessee has shown