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

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

section 801A of the Act\ndecision (supra). We are afraid that such a liberal interpretation would\namount to going against the stricter interpretation principle in view of\nhonourable apex court decision (supra). We accordingly conclude both the\nlearned lower authorities have rightly disallowed assessee's 801A\ndeduction claim involving varying sum(s) (supra) in their respective\norders. 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

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(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the\ndisallowance of deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Act is confirmed on merits.\nThus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are\ndismissed.\nExecution of the project through/by JV constituents and sub-\ncontractors:\n7.23 Alternatively, even otherwise, the assessee is not entitled to claim\ndeduction u/s.801A(4

SABIR, SEW 7 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(4) of the Act.\n\n7.9 At this juncture, it is important to note that there is a clear difference\nand distinction between the terms \"developer\" and \"contractor\". Further,\nnormally, any \"works contract\" awarded by the Government to a\ncontractor by way of a tender process would fall under the ambit of the\ncontractor rather than developer. This issue

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(4) of the Act.\n\n7.9 At this juncture, it is important to note that there is a clear difference\nand distinction between the terms \"developer\" and \"contractor\". Further,\nnormally, any \"works contract\" awarded by the Government to a\ncontractor by way of a tender process would fall under the ambit of the\ncontractor rather than developer. This issue

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

4. Thereafter, the AO, after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance under section 14A r.w rule 8D: Rs. 74,92,000/-; (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

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

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

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

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 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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

4) should not be disallowed. In\nresponse thereto, the assessee has furnished project wise\ndetails to the Assessing Officer. After examining the project\ndetails furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer\nnoted that the unambiguous conditions laid down in the\nprovisions of Section 801A

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowance\nof deduction u/s 801A(4) in terms of provision of section\n80AC, the Id CIT(A) has erred in law in giving