DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in light of the various arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee along with certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Akry Organics Pvt. Ltd Vs. CPC (supra) and also the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Rashmi Infrastructure

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in light of the various arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee along with certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Akry Organics Pvt. Ltd Vs. CPC (supra) and also the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Rashmi Infrastructure

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

IA wherein no formula has been laid down for computing the eligible business profit. 80. In view of the above discussion, question No.2 is answered in affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

ROLON SEALS INTERNATIONAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.947/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Rolon Seals International, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 063. Vs. Ward-11(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aarfr2216G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar

disallowance referring to sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A/10B of the 1.T. Act, which are applicable to the deduction u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act also. The provisions of sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A of the LT. Act shall apply to the exemption u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act also by virtue of sub-section

LANCO SOLAR (GUJARAT) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 905 & 906/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(1) Pan:Aabcl1095J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmation of the same by the learned CIT (A) is highly unjustified and contrary to the law. Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos 905 and 906 of 2024 Lanco Solar Gujarat P Ltd 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, has submitted that section

LANCO SOLAR (GUJARAT) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 905 & 906/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Lanco Solar (Gujarat) Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(1) Pan:Aabcl1095J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/11/2024 आदेश/Order

disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmation of the same by the learned CIT (A) is highly unjustified and contrary to the law. Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos 905 and 906 of 2024 Lanco Solar Gujarat P Ltd 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, has submitted that section

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS & RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD.,),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

10A of the Act which was allowed in the subsequent year i.e., AY 2006-07 by the Ld. AO, during the regular assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. 7. Erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO invoking Section 92CA(1) by not acknowledging the fact that reason for reopening the assessment was other than

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA, or under any provisions of this Chapter under the heading “C- Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder. However, the said sections do not specify under which provision return has to be filed. Therefore, the return of income would include a return filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

10A(lA)} i.e. claim of section 80IA shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date of filing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/ s. 80IA of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

10A(lA)} i.e. claim of section 80IA shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date of filing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/ s. 80IA of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10ВА\nor under any provision of this Chapter under the Head “C-\nDeductions in respect of certain income”, no deduction shall\nbe allowed to them. Further, the provisions of Section 80AC\ndeal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of\nincome is furnished and as per the said provisions