VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92B of the Act to its Spain based “AE”, the learned lower authorities ought to have benchmarked the combined book results at segmental level pertaining to both these units only. We therefore direct the learned TPO to go by the assessee’s consolidated book results as per the combined audit report and proceed afresh for the purpose of necessary

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92B of the Act to its Spain based “AE”, the learned lower authorities ought to have benchmarked the combined book results at segmental level pertaining to both these units only. We therefore direct the learned TPO to go by the assessee’s consolidated book results as per the combined audit report and proceed afresh for the purpose of necessary

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92B of the Act to its Spain based “AE”, the learned lower authorities ought to have benchmarked the combined book results at segmental level pertaining to both these units only. We therefore direct the learned TPO to go by the assessee’s consolidated book results as per the combined audit report and proceed afresh for the purpose of necessary

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

184 (Cuttack) Wag.) wherein it was held that deletion of the disallowance based on legal provision cannot be construed to be within the ambit of 'additional evidence' for the purpose of Rule 46A, even though the Assessee files the additional evidence. Further, reference is also drawn to Hon'ble Gauhati ITAT decision CIT Vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

184 (Cuttack) Wag.) wherein it was held that deletion of the disallowance based on legal provision cannot be construed to be within the ambit of 'additional evidence' for the purpose of Rule 46A, even though the Assessee files the additional evidence. Further, reference is also drawn to Hon'ble Gauhati ITAT decision CIT Vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

184 (Cuttack) Wag.) wherein it was held that deletion of the disallowance based on legal provision cannot be construed to be within the ambit of 'additional evidence' for the purpose of Rule 46A, even though the Assessee files the additional evidence. Further, reference is also drawn to Hon'ble Gauhati ITAT decision CIT Vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

184 (Cuttack) Wag.) wherein it was held that deletion of the disallowance based on legal provision cannot be construed to be within the ambit of 'additional evidence' for the purpose of Rule 46A, even though the Assessee files the additional evidence. Further, reference is also drawn to Hon'ble Gauhati ITAT decision CIT Vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

184 (Cuttack) Wag.) wherein it was held that deletion of the disallowance based on legal provision cannot be construed to be within the ambit of 'additional evidence' for the purpose of Rule 46A, even though the Assessee files the additional evidence. Further, reference is also drawn to Hon'ble Gauhati ITAT decision CIT Vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

184 (Cuttack) Wag.) wherein it was held that deletion of the disallowance based on legal provision cannot be construed to be within the ambit of 'additional evidence' for the purpose of Rule 46A, even though the Assessee files the additional evidence. Further, reference is also drawn to Hon'ble Gauhati ITAT decision CIT Vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

184 ITR (St.) 137 explained the scope and ambit of section 80HHC and the mode of determination of profits derived by an assessee from the export of goods. I.T.A.T., Special Bench in the case of lnternational Research Park Laboratories Ltd. (supra), after following the aforesaid Circular, held that straight jacket formula given rn sub-section (3) has to be followed

GVK TRANSPORTATION PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Gvk Transportation Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Secunderabad. Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcg5295P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Khyati Chadda Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 28.07.2016 In Ita No.0049/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

184/- u/s.14A r.w.r.8D of the Act. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.5,88,09,983/- (interest of Rs.4,40,14,093/- and upfront fee of Rs.1,47,95,890/-) out of financial expenses stating that this expenditure was incurred "in respect of the investments made in its subsidiaries, has to be brought

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ZELAN PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Zelan Projects Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 17(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacz2265B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

184/- was towards supply of materials. Therefore, the TDS provision will not apply. The revenue has raised a :- 7 -: Zelan Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. ground that the assessee has not debited the additional liability created to the P&L account and not claimed as expenditure, but, the CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to delete the same. Therefore

NEC-NCC-MAYTAS JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 and u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('in short the Act'); respectively. Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. Both the learned representatives state at the outset that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance that in all these nine cases seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing its 80IA

NEC-NCC MAYTAS JOINT VENTURE, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 and u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('in short the Act'); respectively. Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. Both the learned representatives state at the outset that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance that in all these nine cases seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing its 80IA

NEC-NCC-MAYTAS JV ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 and u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('in short the Act'); respectively. Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. Both the learned representatives state at the outset that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance that in all these nine cases seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing its 80IA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 and u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('in short the Act'); respectively. Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. Both the learned representatives state at the outset that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance that in all these nine cases seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing its 80IA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 and u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('in short the Act'); respectively. Heard both parties. Case files perused. 2. Both the learned representatives state at the outset that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance that in all these nine cases seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action disallowing its 80IA