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

disallowed deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) towards profits derived from infrastructure project Pranahita Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme, Link-IV, Package No. 10, on the ground that the appellant had not entered into any agreement with Central Government or State Government or local authority or any statutory body and which is a pre-condition for claiming deduction under the said

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

disallowing the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. For the above-mentioned purposes, ld.AR has drawn our attention to the Explanation below Sub-section (4) of 80IA of the Act, which was captured by the Assessing Officer at page 10 of his assessment order, which reads as under : “…..The assessee’s claim is that its case falls under

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

ii) disallowance of the claim of the assessee company for deduction under section 80G w.r.t CSR donations: Rs. 1,88,97,644/-; (iii) disallowance of the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of the Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev

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

disallowed deduction claimed under Section\n80IA(4) towards profits derived from infrastructure project\nPranahita Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme, Link-IV, Package No. 10,\non the ground that the appellant had not entered into any\nagreement with Central Government or State Government or local\nauthority or any statutory body and which is a pre-condition for\nclaiming deduction under the said

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

disallowed deduction claimed under Section\n80IA(4) towards profits derived from infrastructure project\nPranahita Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme, Link-IV, Package No. 10,\non the ground that the appellant had not entered into any\nagreement with Central Government or State Government or local\nauthority or any statutory body and which is a pre-condition for\nclaiming deduction under the said

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

disallowed deduction claimed under Section\n80IA(4) towards profits derived from infrastructure project\nPranahita Chevella Lift Irrigation Scheme, Link-IV, Package No. 10,\non the ground that the appellant had not entered into any\nagreement with Central Government or State Government or local\nauthority or any statutory body and which is a pre-condition for\nclaiming deduction under the said

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

4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an Urban Development Authority constituted under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008. The assessee registered u/s 12A vide CIT(E)/12A/ITAT/2015-16 dt.26.12.2016. Assessee filed its return of income electronically on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, the return of income was revised on 31.03.2019. The return was processed

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

4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an Urban Development Authority constituted under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008. The assessee registered u/s 12A vide CIT(E)/12A/ITAT/2015-16 dt.26.12.2016. Assessee filed its return of income electronically on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, the return of income was revised on 31.03.2019. The return was processed

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

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

disallowing the deduction under\nSection 80-IA of the Act. For the above-mentioned purposes, ld.AR\nhas drawn our attention to the Explanation below Sub-section (4)\nof 80IA of the Act, which was captured by the Assessing Officer at\npage 10 of his assessment order, which reads as under :\n“.....The assessee's claim is that its case falls

HYDERABAD SCIENCE SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 028. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaath3789F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order

10. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in applying the provisions of section 115TD of the Act where it is not applicable to appellant society itself as there is no dissolution of the trust, no merger of the institution in 5 ITA.No.1128/Hyd./2024 nor was there any transfer of assets to other taxable entity, no conversion of the trust

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) CIT v AKS Alloys (P.)(Ltd),[2012]18 taxmann.com 25/205 Taxmann 11(Mad.) Page 21 of 34 ITA Nos 697 to 701 and 750 to 754 of 2020 25. He submitted that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) requiring filing of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) CIT v AKS Alloys (P.)(Ltd),[2012]18 taxmann.com 25/205 Taxmann 11(Mad.) Page 21 of 34 ITA Nos 697 to 701 and 750 to 754 of 2020 25. He submitted that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) requiring filing of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) CIT v AKS Alloys (P.)(Ltd),[2012]18 taxmann.com 25/205 Taxmann 11(Mad.) Page 21 of 34 ITA Nos 697 to 701 and 750 to 754 of 2020 25. He submitted that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) requiring filing of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) CIT v AKS Alloys (P.)(Ltd),[2012]18 taxmann.com 25/205 Taxmann 11(Mad.) Page 21 of 34 ITA Nos 697 to 701 and 750 to 754 of 2020 25. He submitted that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) requiring filing of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) CIT v AKS Alloys (P.)(Ltd),[2012]18 taxmann.com 25/205 Taxmann 11(Mad.) Page 21 of 34 ITA Nos 697 to 701 and 750 to 754 of 2020 25. He submitted that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) requiring filing of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) CIT v AKS Alloys (P.)(Ltd),[2012]18 taxmann.com 25/205 Taxmann 11(Mad.) Page 21 of 34 ITA Nos 697 to 701 and 750 to 754 of 2020 25. He submitted that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) requiring filing of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) CIT v AKS Alloys (P.)(Ltd),[2012]18 taxmann.com 25/205 Taxmann 11(Mad.) Page 21 of 34 ITA Nos 697 to 701 and 750 to 754 of 2020 25. He submitted that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) requiring filing of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) CIT v AKS Alloys (P.)(Ltd),[2012]18 taxmann.com 25/205 Taxmann 11(Mad.) Page 21 of 34 ITA Nos 697 to 701 and 750 to 754 of 2020 25. He submitted that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) requiring filing of audit report along with return are not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed