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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

ii) disallowance of the claim of the assessee company for deduction under section 80G w.r.t CSR donations: Rs. 1,88,97,644/-; (iii) disallowance of the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A of the Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (iv) addition under section 68 in respect of alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev

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

disallowed. Thereafter, assessee furnished his reply. After verification of the submissions made by the assessee, Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dt.30.12.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,56,60,835/-. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief

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

3) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system; (4) a port, airport, inland waterway or inland port or navigational channel in the sea. Assessee’s work is ‘Formation of Venkatadri Reservoir Bund’ and does not fall in any of the above definitions. Obviously, the business of the company

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of CSR expenses of Rs. 1,42,97,133/- against the returned income of Rs. 50,81,16,931/-. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved, the assessee raised certain objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also going through the material available on record, dismissed the objections raised by the assessee. Thereafter

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD

disallowed the claim of the assessee company for deduction under Section 801A of the Act to keep the issue alive.\n11. Per Contra, Shri. S. Rama Rao, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee company (for short, “AR”), on the other hand relied on the order of the CIT(A) and the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

3) rws 153A dated 31-12-2007, the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.27,41,80,859/estimating the profit from contract works at 12.5% of gross receipts a 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad erred in sustaining the disallowance of claim made by the assessee u/ s. 80IA of the Act. 8. The Ld. Commissioner

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

3) rws 153A dated 31-12-2007, the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.27,41,80,859/estimating the profit from contract works at 12.5% of gross receipts a 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad erred in sustaining the disallowance of claim made by the assessee u/ s. 80IA of the Act. 8. The Ld. Commissioner

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

3) rws 153A dated 31-12-2007, the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs.27,41,80,859/estimating the profit from contract works at 12.5% of gross receipts a 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad erred in sustaining the disallowance of claim made by the assessee u/ s. 80IA of the Act. 8. The Ld. Commissioner

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statical purposes

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

II having citation [2017] 84 taxmann.com 239 (Bombay) Page 17 of 29 ITA Nos 695 and 696 of 2020 GVPR Engineers Ltd Hyderabad 19. So far as the enhanced claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) due to disallowance of expenditure under Bank guarantee charges and other expenses are concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statical purposes

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

II having citation [2017] 84 taxmann.com 239 (Bombay) Page 17 of 29 ITA Nos 695 and 696 of 2020 GVPR Engineers Ltd Hyderabad 19. So far as the enhanced claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) due to disallowance of expenditure under Bank guarantee charges and other expenses are concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024

disallowed deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, for Rs. 51,05,42,962/- and added it back to the total income of the assessee. The relevant findings of the AO are as under : “3. Deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. As per the return of income filed for AY.2017-18, the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.51

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would have to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: ♦ Principal CIT, Kanpur v. Surya Merchants

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would have to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: ♦ Principal CIT, Kanpur v. Surya Merchants

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would have to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: ♦ Principal CIT, Kanpur v. Surya Merchants

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would have to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: ♦ Principal CIT, Kanpur v. Surya Merchants

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowing the claim of assessee w/s. 801A. Against this order, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) which was allowed. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), department filed appeal before ITAT. ITAT vide order in ITA No.507/Hyd/2015 dated 27.06.2016 remitted the matter to the CIT(A) directing to pass the speaking order. Accordingly CIT(A) passed order on 09.02.2018 allowing

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

disallowed. This excess WDV resuted in excess claim of depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/-. 4 ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited ii. As per Schedule CYLA of ITR of AY 2017-18 (page 47), the assessee has a business income of Rs 7,42,25,071/-, short term capital gain

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

ii) M/s SEW Constructions Limited, Hyderabad ("SEW" for short) and (iii) M/s. Prasad & Company (Project Works) Limited, Hyderabad ("PRASAD" for short) engaged in the business of 'contract works' and assessed to tax in the status of an AOP. The assessee AOP filed its original return of income on 31.10.2006 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction of Rs.59