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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

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

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

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

801A. 23.2 From the above reading, it is clear that prior to the insertion of the Finance Act, 2007, there was no such Explanation, and it was only by way of the Explanation that a specific category of persons executing works contracts was excluded from Section 80IA of the Act. This exclusion applied only to works contracts' awarded

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

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

801A is not allowed then the retention money should be reduced from the total income, I find that the AO or CIT(A) has no power to reduce the returned income. Only the appellant can reduce the returned income by way of filing revised return of income within the prescribed time limits. In the instant case the appellant

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

7,13,73,002/-. Once the assessee had admitted the disallowance of expenditure made towards sub-contracts, amount based on the material available on record, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of the balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. The findings of the Assessing Officer given in paragraph 4.25 to 4.27 are apt. We do not find

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

7,13,73,002/-. Once the assessee had admitted the disallowance of expenditure made towards sub-contracts, amount based on the material available on record, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of the balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. The findings of the Assessing Officer given in paragraph 4.25 to 4.27 are apt. We do not find

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

7,13,73,002/-. Once the assessee had admitted the disallowance of expenditure made towards sub-contracts, amount based on the material available on record, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of the balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. The findings of the Assessing Officer given in paragraph 4.25 to 4.27 are apt. We do not find

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

7,13,73,002/-. Once the assessee had admitted the disallowance of expenditure made towards sub-contracts, amount based on the material available on record, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of the balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. The findings of the Assessing Officer given in paragraph 4.25 to 4.27 are apt. We do not find

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

7,13,73,002/-. Once the assessee had admitted the disallowance of expenditure made towards sub-contracts, amount based on the material available on record, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of the balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. The findings of the Assessing Officer given in paragraph 4.25 to 4.27 are apt. We do not find

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

7,13,73,002/-. Once the assessee had admitted the disallowance of expenditure made towards sub-contracts, amount based on the material available on record, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of the balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. The findings of the Assessing Officer given in paragraph 4.25 to 4.27 are apt. We do not find

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

7,13,73,002/-. Once the assessee had admitted the disallowance of expenditure made towards sub-contracts, amount based on the material available on record, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of the balance amount of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. The findings of the Assessing Officer given in paragraph 4.25 to 4.27 are apt. We do not find

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

801A(4) of the Act. 7.9 At this juncture, it is important to note that there is a clear difference and distinction between the terms "developer" and "contractor". Further, normally, any "works contract" awarded by the Government to a contractor by way of a tender process would fall under the ambit of the contractor rather than developer. This issue

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी. सं/Ita No.1609/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Valuelabs Llp, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Pan: Aakfv2276K Central Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 06/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 27/09/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 23/11/2021. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital in nature and hence the same cannot be chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and Gains from Business and Profession." 15. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that assessee is eligible for exemption/ deduction even if the same is not claimed in the original or revised return. 16. Appellant may, add or alter or amend

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

7) Decision of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Sun Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No.531/Kol/2016 dated 19.2.2018: ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others The assessee is in the business of fabrication andgalvanizing and erection of transMIssion towers. It claimed payment of Rs.37 lakhs to the sub contractors. The Hon’ble Tribunal found that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

7) Decision of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Sun Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No.531/Kol/2016 dated 19.2.2018: ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others The assessee is in the business of fabrication andgalvanizing and erection of transMIssion towers. It claimed payment of Rs.37 lakhs to the sub contractors. The Hon’ble Tribunal found that