ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

gains of business or profession in sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. By this, the assessee seeks compliance with Explanation-2 of section 37 of the Act and, therefore, the Revenue shall not have any grievance. Whether or not the assessee suo moto disallowed the spend towards the CSR while computing the business income is a verifiable fact

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

gains of business or profession in\nsections 28 to 44DB of the Act. By this, the assessee seeks\ncompliance with Explanation-2 of section 37 of the Act and, therefore,\nthe Revenue shall not have any grievance. Whether or not the\nassessee suo moto disallowed the spend towards the CSR while\ncomputing the business income is a verifiable fact

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

801A. The eligible business is defined in section 80IA(1) with reference to the section 80IA(4). Nowhere in any of these sub-sections, does eligible business mean business claiming the deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the argument that assessee is not claiming any deduction in the year concerned is of no relevance. (b)Whether or not the 80IA deduction

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.\n23.2 From the above reading, it is clear that prior to the insertion\nof the Finance Act, 2007, there was no such Explanation, and it\nwas only by way of the Explanation that a specific category of\npersons executing works contracts was excluded from Section\n80IA of the Act. This exclusion applied only to works contracts'\nawarded

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

801A(4) of the Act, it is abundantly clear that for the purpose of claiming deduction, it is essential for the assessee to prove that the agreement has been entered by the assessee with the government/ statutory body. Admittedly, in the present case, the agreement was not entered between the assessee with the government body and the agreement was entered

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

801A should be\nclaimed against eligible business income of Rs 7,42,25,071/- only and\nthe claim of deduction against short term capital gain and income from\nother sources aggregating to Rs 8,54,52,625 (2466759+82985866) is not\nin order and should be brought to tax.\nAccordingly, the JAO submitted a proposal u/s 263 through proper\nchannel

VALUELABS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the order passed by the CIT(A) and\ndismiss the assessee's appeal

capital in nature and hence the same cannot be chargeable\nto tax under the head \"Profits and Gains from Business and\nProfession.\"\n15. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that assessee\nis eligible for exemption/ deduction even if the same is not claimed in\nthe original or revised return.\n16. Appellant may, add or alter or amend

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 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.\n\n23.2 From the above reading, it is clear that prior to the insertion\nof the Finance Act, 2007, there was no such Explanation, and it\nwas only by way of the Explanation that a specific category of\npersons executing works contracts was excluded from Section\n80IA of the Act. This exclusion applied only to works contracts'\nawarded

TPL- SUCG CONSORTIUM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

capital gains.] 10 ITA 753/Hyd/2024 7.1. For the purpose of computation of income from construction and service contracts, furthermore, it was submitted that once the retention money has been taken into account while computing the total income of the assessee, and in that case, the assessed income cannot be lower than the returned income. Therefore, retention from the income

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

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A(4) of the Act, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the case of NEC-NCC-Maytas JV ITA No.496/H/2018 dated 12.05.2021.” 30. Per contra, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) had passed the order after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of all the A.Ys

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A(4) of the Act, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the case of NEC-NCC-Maytas JV ITA No.496/H/2018 dated 12.05.2021.” 30. Per contra, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) had passed the order after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of all the A.Ys

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A(4) of the Act, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the case of NEC-NCC-Maytas JV ITA No.496/H/2018 dated 12.05.2021.” 30. Per contra, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) had passed the order after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of all the A.Ys

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A(4) of the Act, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the case of NEC-NCC-Maytas JV ITA No.496/H/2018 dated 12.05.2021.” 30. Per contra, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) had passed the order after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of all the A.Ys

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A(4) of the Act, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the case of NEC-NCC-Maytas JV ITA No.496/H/2018 dated 12.05.2021.” 30. Per contra, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) had passed the order after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of all the A.Ys

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A(4) of the Act, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the case of NEC-NCC-Maytas JV ITA No.496/H/2018 dated 12.05.2021.” 30. Per contra, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) had passed the order after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of all the A.Ys

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

801A(4) of the Act, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the case of NEC-NCC-Maytas JV ITA No.496/H/2018 dated 12.05.2021.” 30. Per contra, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) had passed the order after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of all the A.Ys