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

11. The ld. AO has rejected the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed the claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied on the same. It is observed that the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

disallowed such claim in respect of projects awarded to JV's / Consortium only on the ground that the agreement with relevant Central or State Government is entered into by the JV / Consortia, but not the assessee, ignoring the fact that except signing 8 agreement with relevant State Government, all other activities were carried out by the assessee, including designing

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

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-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., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 22 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the disallowance of Rs. 10,15,818/- sustained by CIT(A), will result in addition of the amount twice to the gross total income of the assessee, once through foreign contribution received reimbursed amount is already included in the total income

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

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

section 80IA(13) are not attracted, however, the department has filed appeal before Hon’ble High court against the decision of the Tribunal. As the interpretation of provision of sec. 80IA(4) of the IT Act should not enable works contractors to avail the benefits u/s 80IA(4)(i)(c), hence, to maintain consistency with the stand of the revenue

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED , , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed"

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) for all the three assessment years and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 5. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, while reiterating the submissions made

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed"

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) for all the three assessment years and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 5. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, while reiterating the submissions made

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

11. The ld. AO has rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed the claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied on the same. It is observed that the assessee

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)

11. The ld. AO has rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed the claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied on the same. It is observed that the assessee