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

4. In view of the above concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the respondent- assessee is not a developer as it is found that the assessee was awarded a contract for full-fledged development of an undefined Airport which is evidently not for any repairs or maintenance

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

Section 80IA of the Act by observing that with the purpose of boosting the country's infrastructure specially the transport infrastructure, Finance Act, 1995 which came into effect April 01, 1996 brought an amendment to the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the views taken in the case

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

B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 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

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80C of the Act of Rs. 66,982/-. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 of the Act, dated 26/03/2025, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,35,157/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

4 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 16/01/2025 declaring an income of Rs.19,20,130/-. As the return of income filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was beyond the stipulated period of 92 days as was provided in the said notice, therefore, the AO while framing the assessment observed that the same

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

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.113/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Prasad Film Laboratories The ACIT, Circle-6(1), Private Limited, Hyderabad. vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. PIN – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. PAN AABCP2280P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate For Revenue : Sri Vinodh Kannan

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

120/-. In Page 2 of 23 DBS Technology Services India Private Limited. this case, ACIT, CPC, Bangalore had completed summary assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 22.10.2019 at income of Rs.1,00,43,93,499/- by disallowing of Rs.1,00,20,63,008/- u/s 10AA of the Act and employees’ contribution of Rs.1

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal I

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowed under section 40(A3) of the Act. In respect of balance amount of Rs.98,62,500/- reflected in the loose sheets, it pertains to development of the project in QM Nagar land belongs to Shri K. Raghuram Krishna Raju and the project got held up due to denial of permission by the Archaeological Department and the same

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

section 80-IA of the Act, an eligible industrial undertaking is entitled to claim a 100% deduction of the profits and gains arising out of the eligible business. The said deduction is available for 10 consecutive years from the initial year. 12. In case of the appellant, it is pertinent to note that the initial year i.e. the first year

MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. ITA Nos. Appellant Respondent M/s. Mandava Deputy 26/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Holdings Private Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle-1(2), 27/Hyd/2022 2017-18 [PAN: AAFCM4964M] Hyderabad Assistant M/s. Mandava 54/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Commissioner of Holdings

MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. ITA Nos. Appellant Respondent M/s. Mandava Deputy 26/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Holdings Private Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle-1(2), 27/Hyd/2022 2017-18 [PAN: AAFCM4964M] Hyderabad Assistant M/s. Mandava 54/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Commissioner of Holdings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / नििाारण अपीलार्थी / प्रत् यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y. ITA Nos. Appellant Respondent M/s. Mandava Deputy 26/Hyd/2022 2016-17 Holdings Private Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle-1(2), 27/Hyd/2022 2017-18 [PAN: AAFCM4964M] Hyderabad Assistant M/s. Mandava 54/Hyd/2022 2017-18 Commissioner of Holdings

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 690, the provisions of Section 115BBE are not attracted in this case." In view of the above reasons, the AD is directed to tax the amount