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

5) and made additional claim of deduction u/s 80IA for Rs.11,28,18,375/-, in respect of Jaigarh unit. The Ld. AO has disallowed additional claim of deduction u/s 80IA only on the ground that said claim was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) and in view of specific provision of section

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

139 or clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142 1[or section 148] or section 153A [***] relating to the assessment year commencing [on the 1st day of April, 1a[2023]] shall,— [(a) in the case of a person being 2[an individual who is a resident other than not ordinarily resident and] where the total income includes income

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

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. towards disallowance

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

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

Section 139(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. towards disallowance

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

disallowed the claim of deduction, inter-alia, on the ground that a claim not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) and sought to be made for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A of the Act would not be maintainable. Further, the assessee was also found to be ineligible

PONNAPULA SULOCHANA, L/R OF LATE PONNAPULA SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

5) can only substitute the original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform into a return under Section 139(3) in order to avail benefit of carry forward and set-off any loss under Section 80 of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel for the Revenue case of DCIT Vs. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., (ITA Nos.603

PONAPULA SULOCHANA LR LATE P SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

5) can only substitute the original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform into a return under Section 139(3) in order to avail benefit of carry forward and set-off any loss under Section 80 of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel for the Revenue case of DCIT Vs. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., (ITA Nos.603

SHRI GAYATRI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

5) can only substitute the original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform into a return under Section 139(3) in order to avail benefit of carry forward and set-off any loss under Section 80 of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel for the Revenue case of DCIT Vs. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., (ITA Nos.603

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

139, 147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

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

139, 147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

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

139, 147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

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

139, 147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

5) of the Act.\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch no fresh claim or deduction could

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

5) of the Act.\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch no fresh claim or deduction could

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

5) of the Act.\n\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch no fresh claim or deduction

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

5) of the Act.\n24\nITA. Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017\nAnd ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139

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

139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2018, declaring an income of Rs.141,83,11,120/-, and “book profit” under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 230,21,15,364/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, on various issues, viz. business purchases, deduction claimed under section 801A

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

139(1), as a\ncheck has been put in place by virtue of section 10B (5) to\nverify the correctness of claim of deduction at the time of\nfiling the return. If an assessee claims an exemption under\nthe Act by virtue of Section 10B, then the correctness of claim\nhas already been verified under section 10B (5). Therefore

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

139(1), as a\ncheck has been put in place by virtue of section 10B (5) to\nverify the correctness of claim of deduction at the time of\nfiling the return. If an assessee claims an exemption under\nthe Act by virtue of Section 10B, then the correctness of claim\nhas already been verified under section 10B (5). Therefore