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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Further, if you go by the scope of the project work, as defined in the BID document, it is a huge irrigation project for drawing 88.24 TMC water from Mid Manair Reservoir in 120 days with a static head 50 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV of about 88 mtrs lift in single stage at Anantagiri

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

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

b) it has entered into an agreement with the Central Government\nor a State Government or a local authority or any statutory body\nfor (i). developing or (i) Operating and maintaining or (ii).\nDeveloping, operating & maintaining,\n(c). It has started or starts operating and maintaining the\ninfrastructure facility on or after the 1st Day of April

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Further, if you\ngo by the scope of the project work, as defined in the BID\ndocument, it is a huge irrigation project for drawing 88.24 TMC\nwater from Mid Manair Reservoir in 120 days with a static head\nof about 88 mtrs lift in single stage at Anantagiri Village and the\nproject requires

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Further, if you\ngo by the scope of the project work, as defined in the BID\ndocument, it is a huge irrigation project for drawing 88.24 TMC\nwater from Mid Manair Reservoir in 120 days with a static head\nof about 88 mtrs lift in single stage at Anantagiri Village and the\nproject requires

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

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 80- IA of the\nAct and is eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act.\nWe observe that Ld. CIT(A) undertook a detailed analysis of the scope of\nwork undertaken by the assessee and the various risks and\nresponsibilities undertaken by the assessee and then came to conclusion\nthat assessee qualifies

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

B”, Hyderabad in Deloitte Tax Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT-Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA 341/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024 and Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024. 17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue, and find that the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the disallowance

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

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

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

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

B”, Hyderabad in Deloitte Tax\nServices India Private Limited Vs. DCIT-Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, ITA\n341/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024 and Deloitte & Touche Assurance &\nEnterprise Risk Services India Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1),\nHyderabad, ITA No. 342/Hyd/2023, dated 19/06/2024.\n17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue,\nand find that the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the disallowance

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