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

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

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

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

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed. Thereafter, assessee furnished his reply.\nAfter verification of the submissions made by the assessee, Assessing\nOfficer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act\ndt.30.12.2019, determining the total income of the assessee at\nRs.11,56,60,835/-.\n5.\nFeeling aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee\nfiled appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief

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

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

R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

801A of the Act of Rs. 15,18,20,494/-). The assessee company\nhad disclosed its “book profit” under section 115JB of the Act at Rs.\n24,69,59,809/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny\n5\nITA No.235 & 363/Hyd/2025\nR.K. INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED T\nassessment and notice under section 143(2) of the Act, dated\n11/06/2021 was issued

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

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

section 801A. On\nappeal made by the assessee, CIT(A) upheld the action of AO. Assessee\nfiled appeal before TAT against the order of CIT(A). Hon'ble ITAT, vide\nOrder No. ITA No.221/Hyd/2009 dated 22.03.2012, directed the AO to\nexamine the records and grant deduction u/s. 801A. Subsequently another\norder was passed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

801A.\n23.2 From the above reading, it is clear that prior to the insertion\nof the Finance Act, 2007, there was no such Explanation, and it\nwas only by way of the Explanation that a specific category of\npersons executing works contracts was excluded from Section\n80IA of the Act. This exclusion applied only to works contracts'\nawarded

VALUELABS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the order passed by the CIT(A) and\ndismiss the assessee's appeal

3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,\n\"the Act\"), dated 27/09/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 23/11/2021.\nThe assessee firm has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:\nITA No.1609/Hyd/2025\nValuelabs LLP vs. DCIT\n1.\nThe order

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

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

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

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

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

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

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

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that