MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145 of the Act. 12. The assessee has relied upon case-law of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of BHAGYANAGAR CONSTRUCTION (P) 124) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER vide 1993 (046) ITD-0236-THYD dated 12.04.1993 where in it was held that “in case of a building contractor, the revenue need not wait till the completion of the tract

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145 of the Act. 12. The assessee has relied upon case-law of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of BHAGYANAGAR CONSTRUCTION (P) 124) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER vide 1993 (046) ITD-0236-THYD dated 12.04.1993 where in it was held that “in case of a building contractor, the revenue need not wait till the completion of the tract

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145 of the Act. 12. The assessee has relied upon case-law of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of BHAGYANAGAR CONSTRUCTION (P) 124) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER vide 1993 (046) ITD-0236-THYD dated 12.04.1993 where in it was held that “in case of a building contractor, the revenue need not wait till the completion of the tract

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

145 & 482/Hyd/2022, dated\n16/08/2023, wherein it has been held that there is no blanket prohibition\nunder the Income-tax Act against allowing deduction under section 80G\nin respect of CSR-related donations, except in cases specifically barred\nunder section 80G(2)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(iiihl). For the sake of\nclarity, we deem it apposite to cull

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

3 : The company has contributed Rs.l crore to Swach Bharat Kosh and Rs.1 crore to any other charitable trust registered u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Tax Treatment: The entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2 crores is to be disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

3 : The company has contributed Rs.l crore to Swach Bharat Kosh and Rs.1 crore to any other charitable trust registered u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Tax Treatment: The entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2 crores is to be disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of Section

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

145] This court had occasion to deal with the provision while it was in force in the GIDC case (supra) The court had then emphasized that the expression "development" in Section 10(20A) should be understood widely; thus, all development programmes "relating to any industry" fell within the purview of "development" The court also highlighted that nothing

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

145 Taxmann.com 37 submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision has held that re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated on account of change of opinion. He submitted that for the year under consideration, scrutiny assessment proceedings were conducted which culminated in an assessment order dated 25.01.2012 and all the issues raised in the re- assessment proceedings