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

section 80IA of the Act deduction (supra). We are afraid that such a liberal interpretation would amount to going against the stricter interpretation principle in view of honourable apex court decision (supra). We accordingly conclude both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed assessee's 80IA deduction claim involving varying sum(s) (supra) in their respective orders. The same stands

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

section 801A(4) of the Act in the statute by the legislature was to achieve rapid growth in the infrastructure development of the country by drawing additional resources both financial and technical with private participation. This particular intention of the legislature has been clearly highlighted by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Ramky Infrastructure Limited (supra

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

Section 801A(4) of the Act, on the ground that it was undertaken through a partnership firm which is not eligible for claiming deduction under the said statutory provision, which disallowance

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. Your Appellant submits that a direction may be given to the Assessing Officer to consider all the disallowance

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. Your Appellant submits that a direction may be given to the Assessing Officer to consider all the disallowance

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, 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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

DEPUTY 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

section 801A(4) in respect of electrical projects also. 7. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the decision of the ITAT in the case of ASR Engineering & Projects Limited and ought to have disallowed

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

section 801A(4) of the Act in the statute by the legislature was to achieve rapid growth in the infrastructure development of the country by drawing additional resources both financial and technical with private participation. This particular intention of the legislature has been clearly highlighted by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Ramky Infrastructure Limited (supra

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed"

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

801A(4) of the I.T. Act. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is correct in law in allowing the deduction u/s 80lA although the assessee does not own the facility and only leased the facility from GHIAL 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1574 & 1742/Hyd/2017 Hyderabad Menzies Air Cargo Pvt. Ltd. 4) Any other ground that

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED , , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed"

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

801A(4) of the I.T. Act. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is correct in law in allowing the deduction u/s 80lA although the assessee does not own the facility and only leased the facility from GHIAL 2 I.T.A. Nos. 1574 & 1742/Hyd/2017 Hyderabad Menzies Air Cargo Pvt. Ltd. 4) Any other ground that

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

disallowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing as under : “7.4 I have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT (supra) wherein the issue of the assessee's eligibility