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

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

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

801A(4) of the Act is not fulfilled. The work contract Pranahitha-Chevella Lift irrigation scheme link-IV, package No.10 is actually awarded to M/s.HCC-MEIL-BHEL(Joint Venture) from the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & C.A.D. Department vide Agreement No.06/2008-09 dated 02/12/2008. Hence, as per the provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act, the Joint Venture being a separate entity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

9 in assessee’s appeal and Grounds No. 1 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 41. Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal relates to the issue under section 115JB of the Act. On a perusal of record, it is found that this issue is identical to the Ground

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

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

section 801A of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed\nappeals before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the\nassessee by passing common order dt.15.03.2019, wherein it was\nheld as under :\n“6.......\nTo sum up, the appellant is eligible for all the projects as claimed for\ndeduction u/s. 801A but for the Narayanpet project

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

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

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

9. The Ld. CIT (A)\nfailed to appreciate the fact that, the underlying purpose of both Carbon\nCredits and RECs is the promotion of environmental protection and\nsustainability, accordingly to which any income earned from the sale\nof RECs is eligible to be taxed at the concessional rate of 10% u/s\n115BBG

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 for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 801A of the Act?" 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of civil contracts works. The returns of Income filed by the assessee for Asst Years 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 showing total income

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.\n\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