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

disallowances of deduction claimed u/s 80IAof the I.T.Act 1961. We do not see any reasons to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, 38 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. 27. Similar view has been taken by the Chennai

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

disallowances of deduction claimed u/s 80IAof the I.T.Act 1961. We do not see any reasons to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, 38 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. 27. Similar view has been taken by the Chennai

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

disallowing the claim of exemption of Rs.100,20,63,008 under section 10AA of the Act in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, basis which relief was granted by the ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, the order of ld.CIT(A) should be upheld.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 234B/234C, which was disallowed in the earlier years.\n2. An amount of Rs.2,09,08,248/- was credited to Profit and Loss Account in F.Y. 2017-18 towards the reversal of excess interest debited in earlier years, computed as under:\nSr\nInterest\nrelating\nto A.Y.\n(1)\nInterest\nDetermined\non\n(2)\nInterest\ndebited\nto P&L\nA/c

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

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA\nin respect of the sale of scrap and interest receipts is not sustainable.\nAs a result, ground no 5 is allowed.\n7. In result, the appeal is allowed.\"\n36. The revenue aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the\nmatter in appeal before us.\n37.\nShri. Sourabh Soparkar, Senior Advocate

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

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

5) to section 43 or in the alternative under clause (d) to sub- section (S) of section 43 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Section 234B/234C, which\nwas disallowed in the earlier years.\n2. An amount of Rs.2,09,08,248/- was credited to Profit and Loss Account in F.Y. 2017-18\ntowards the reversal of excess interest debited in earlier years, computed as under:\nSr\nInterest\nrelating\nto A.Y.\n(1)\n(2)\nInterest\nDetermined\non\n(3)\nInterest\ndebited

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

disallowed and added to the total income.\nAddition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-\"\n16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned\nCIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after\nconsidering the remand report has confirmed the action of the\nAssessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that\nthe plant & machinery

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

disallowed and added to the total income.\nAddition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-\"\n16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned\nCIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after\nconsidering the remand report has confirmed the action of the\nAssessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that\nthe plant & machinery

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

43,41,133/- booked by the assessee attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

43,41,133/- booked by the assessee attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

43,41,133/- booked by the assessee attracts the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49

S & P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 463/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

43(1) of the Act does not affect the right of the amalgamated company to claim depreciation as it would operate where an asset is acquired by amalgamating company, without incurring any financial outlay and such asset is transferred to amalgamated company without incurring any financial outlay. In the instant case, excess consideration is paid for goodwill, the explanation

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The assessee preferred a further appeal before the ITAT, and the ITAT, vide its common order in ITA No.681/Hyd/2020 dated 21- 03-2022, set aside the issue to the file of AO for verification. The assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana against the common order passed by the Tribunal and contested that

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The assessee preferred a further appeal before the ITAT, and the ITAT, vide its common order in ITA No.681/Hyd/2020 dated 21- 03-2022, set aside the issue to the file of AO for verification. The assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana against the common order passed by the Tribunal and contested that