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

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 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] [(3) The return

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

SRI MODH VISA GOWBHUJA SAJNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us (As Uploaded):

disallowed the exemption u/s 11. Hence, the appellant's ground is dismissed. 6.3 The appellant has submitted further that it had filed an application U/s 12A in Form 10A dated 19.04.1991 before CIT, AP-2, Hyderabad which was duly acknowledged by the Commissioner on 01.05.1991. However the said application was neither rejected nor accepted and as the appellant trust didn

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

12A of the Act granted on 16.09.2019 for the asst. year under consideration in spite of specific proviso to section l2A to that effect. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue are incorrect on facts and in law. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of registration under section

SAGARA KSHATRIYA WELFARE AND CHARITABLE TRUST ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

12A of the Act and also filed audit in form No. 10B for the year under consideration within the due date. An intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed by CPC on 31/03/2023, by disallowing

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