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 or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading “C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder Section 80AC Deduction not to be allowed unless furnished-Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant

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 or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading “C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder Section 80AC Deduction not to be allowed unless furnished-Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant

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

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

10A of the Act. Computing incorrect amount of interest under section 234D of the Act. ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page 5 7. The Ld. AO erred in computing incorrect amount of interest under section 234D of the Act on the excess refund issued amounting to Rs. 39,11,505. - Initiating penalty proceedings 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section

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

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

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

5 and 6 of section 10A to this section i.e. 10 AA of the act, and according to form No. 56F, the realization of export proceeds is required to be shown. In that form assessee has shown that full consideration in convertible foreign exchange for exports made by the undertaking was brought into in India ITA No.253/Hyd/2017 Page 18 within

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

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

5) of the Act on 01.07.2020. The A.O. passed the order under Section 143(1) of the Act on 29.03.2021 and determined the total income at Rs. 7,88,79,105/- by rejecting the deduction claimed under 10 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture Section 80-IA(4) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld

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

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

5) of the Act on 01.07.2020. The A.O. passed the order under Section 143(1) of the Act on 29.03.2021 and determined the total income at Rs. 7,88,79,105/- by rejecting the deduction claimed under 10 ITA No.884/Hyd/2025 & ITA 742/Hyd/2025 & C.O.No.17/Hyd/2025 Patel SEW Joint Venture Section 80-IA(4) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld

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

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

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

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

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