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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Depreciation [now amortization as per (CBDT Circular] and other incidental Office equipment. The entire Plant & Machinery is owned and provided by Gayatri Projects Limited only. As such, the entity is formed by transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Depreciation [now amortization as per (CBDT Circular] and other incidental Office equipment. The entire Plant & Machinery is owned and provided by Gayatri Projects Limited only. As such, the entity is formed by transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Depreciation [now amortization as per (CBDT Circular] and other incidental Office equipment. The entire Plant & Machinery is owned and provided by Gayatri Projects Limited only. As such, the entity is formed by transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section

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

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)

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

801A as claimed by the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case for the asst years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA Nos.910,911/Hyd/201S, dated 22-01-2016, has upheld the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the assessee. Respectfully following the Page 21 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch decision

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

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

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

depreciation at 12.5%. Besides that the Assessing Officer vide his order dt.31.12.2007 had disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2005-06 is reproduced hereinbelow (page 19 of the assessment order):- “The proviso to section 80IA(4)(1)(c) lays down that

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

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

depreciation at 12.5%. Besides that the Assessing Officer vide his order dt.31.12.2007 had disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2005-06 is reproduced hereinbelow (page 19 of the assessment order):- “The proviso to section 80IA(4)(1)(c) lays down that