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

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

8. Wherever ramps are to be provided, it shall be the duty of the assessee. 9. The monsoon drains are to be provided by the assessee; 10. The assessee has to provide all the safety measures. 11. The assessee has to undertake maintenance of the project for the specified period. 12. All the risk and responsibilities were that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

8) The decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Narender Kumar Gupta, reported in (2015) 55 taxmann.com371 dated 8.1.2015: In the above case, the authorities found that in respect of some of the purchases, there is a variation in the name of the party on voucher and on corresponding bill

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

8) The decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Narender Kumar Gupta, reported in (2015) 55 taxmann.com371 dated 8.1.2015: In the above case, the authorities found that in respect of some of the purchases, there is a variation in the name of the party on voucher and on corresponding bill