DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

10A[, section 10AA], clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB [, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, 5[section 115JC] or section 115VW] [or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of 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

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)

disallowance under section 40(a) (i) of the Act against the reimbursements made to its AEs, disregarding the well settled ratio in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd [2010] 194 Taxman 192 (Bombay). b) Erred in upholding the flawed approach adopted by the Ld. AO in not granting deduction under section 10A of the Act which was allowed

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

section 10A(7) and 80IA(10), when there is no export of software at all. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have disallowed the entire deduction claimed by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO, since there was no software export, except body shopping. Thus, argued that the Department to be allowed and dismiss the cross appeals filed