DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80AC and 80A(5) in support of the case of the revenue. 7.1. Further, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80AC and 80A(5) in support of the case of the revenue. 7.1. Further, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer was correct in disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowed additional claim of deduction u/s 80IA only on the ground that said claim was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) and in view of specific provision of section 80A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowed additional claim of deduction u/s 80IA only on the ground that said claim was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) and in view of specific provision of section 80A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

disallowing such claims had also\ntaken support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), wherein\nit has been laid down that the AO cannot entertain a\nclaim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised\nreturn. Since the assessee neither made any such\nclaim in the original return filed

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

Section 80IA(4)(1) of the Act. This is further\nfortified by the provisions of Section 80IA(4) of the Act and as per the\nproviso, the deduction is allowed to a successor entity in case one\nenterprise developed such infrastructure facility and after\ndevelopment, transfer such infrastructure facility to another Enterprise\nfor the purpose of operating and maintaining

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowed the claim of deduction, inter-alia, on the ground that a claim not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) and sought to be made for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A of the Act would not be maintainable. Further, the assessee was also found to be ineligible

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

disallowing such claims had also\ntaken support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), wherein\nit has been laid down that the AO cannot entertain a\nclaim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised\nreturn. Since the assessee neither made any such\nclaim in the original return filed

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

Section 80IA(4)(1) of the Act. This is further\nfortified by the provisions of Section 80IA(4) of the Act and as per the\nproviso, the deduction is allowed to a successor entity in case one\nenterprise developed such infrastructure facility and after\ndevelopment, transfer such infrastructure facility to another Enterprise\nfor the purpose of operating and maintaining

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

80A of the Act, the appellant needs to make a claim for deduction under Section 80- IA of the Act. Unless the assessee makes a claim in its return of income, no deduction can be allowed under Chapter C- Deductions in Respect of Certain Incomes. Further, as per Section 80AC of the Act, in order to claim deduction under Section

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

80A of the Act, the appellant needs to make a claim for deduction under Section 80- IA of the Act. Unless the assessee makes a claim in its return of income, no deduction can be allowed under Chapter C- Deductions in Respect of Certain Incomes. Further, as per Section 80AC of the Act, in order to claim deduction under Section

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY WANKIDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, MANCHIRIAL

Bench: Us:

1) or 148 and non-est in view of provision of section 80A(5), precondition to claim deduction under section 80P had not been fulfilled and therefore assessee was not entitled to benefit of exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) Therefore, in application of the above decisions of the High court and also the mandated provisions of the statute

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

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

Section 80A deduction is allowed in respect of profits & gains from industrial undertaking engaged in infrastructure development to the extent of 100% of profits & gains derived from such business for ten consecutive years. As admitted by the AR, there was a loss under the head ‘income from business/profession' of Rs.3,89,90,962/- dung the year. Since there

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

Section 80A deduction is allowed in respect of profits & gains from industrial undertaking engaged in infrastructure development to the extent of 100% of profits & gains derived from such business for ten consecutive years. As admitted by the AR, there was a loss under the head ‘income from business/profession' of Rs.3,89,90,962/- dung the year. Since there

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

Section 80A deduction is allowed in respect of profits & gains from industrial undertaking engaged in infrastructure development to the extent of 100% of profits & gains derived from such business for ten consecutive years. As admitted by the AR, there was a loss under the head ‘income from business/profession' of Rs.3,89,90,962/- dung the year. Since there

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

Section 80A deduction is allowed in respect of profits & gains from industrial undertaking engaged in infrastructure development to the extent of 100% of profits & gains derived from such business for ten consecutive years. As admitted by the AR, there was a loss under the head ‘income from business/profession' of Rs.3,89,90,962/- dung the year. Since there

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

Section 80A deduction is allowed in respect of profits & gains from industrial undertaking engaged in infrastructure development to the extent of 100% of profits & gains derived from such business for ten consecutive years. As admitted by the AR, there was a loss under the head ‘income from business/profession' of Rs.3,89,90,962/- dung the year. Since there