DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property” of Rs.13,63,103/- and “Income from NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. other sources” of Rs.18,53,35,645/-, and arrived at the gross total income of Rs.17,56,90,533 /- before applying provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. 31. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act i.e., under section 80IA

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

Section 54 is to ensure that\nthe assessee is not taxed on the capital gain, if he replaces his house\nwith another house and spends money earned on the capital gains\nwithin the stipulated period. For the sake of clarity, we deem it\napposite to cull out the relevant observations of the Hon'ble High\nCourt, as under

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

house property at Gopanapalli village, Serlingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs.3,59,00,000/-. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Act on the ground that three flats sold by the assessee is a short-term capital gain, as the holding period was less than 36

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

36,66,031/- available as opening cash in hand of the Appellant as on 01.04.2016. 7. The NFAC. erred in solely relying on the figure appearing under schedule AL in the return of Income of earlier year even though glaring evidences such as financial statements as well as cash flow statement was produced by the Appellant to prove the factual

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

property had been furnished. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the ld.AR and accordingly, these grounds are s dismissed. Ground No.13 to 15: 28. These grounds are with respect to the disallowance of proportionate premium of Rs.54,25,585/- towards amount utilized aggregating to Rs.9.50 crores for paying advance under

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

property had been furnished. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the ld.AR and accordingly, these grounds are s dismissed. Ground No.13 to 15: 28. These grounds are with respect to the disallowance of proportionate premium of Rs.54,25,585/- towards amount utilized aggregating to Rs.9.50 crores for paying advance under

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property at Rs1,11,61,147/- and net income at Rs. 66,36,216/- as against the income shown at Rs.17,09,114/-. The AO has also added an amount of Rs. 54,54,000/- as unexplained investment under section

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier A.Ys should be withdrawn. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, since the assessee has completed the construction of 4 buildings containing various residential units, each block also can be considered as a separate housing project and the assessee is eligible

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier A.Ys should be withdrawn. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, since the assessee has completed the construction of 4 buildings containing various residential units, each block also can be considered as a separate housing project and the assessee is eligible

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier A.Ys should be withdrawn. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, since the assessee has completed the construction of 4 buildings containing various residential units, each block also can be considered as a separate housing project and the assessee is eligible

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

Properties P Ltd Vs DCIT (cited Supra), has held that as long as the approval given by the Central Government is valid and not withdrawn by it, the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section BOIA(4)(iii) of the Act." 36. Thus, the above proposition stands considered and accepted by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

house property and does not have any brought forward loss 3[or loss to be carried forward] under the head; or (iii) xxxxx 4[(I) has assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; (IA) has signing authority in any account located outside India; (IB) has income from any source outside India; (IC) has income to be apportioned

MANJEERA PROJECTS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

section 80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier A.Ys should be withdrawn. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, since the assessee has completed the construction of 4 buildings containing various residential units, each block also can be considered as a separate housing project and the assessee is eligible

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

section 80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier A.Ys should be withdrawn. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, since the assessee has completed the construction of 4 buildings containing various residential units, each block also can be considered as a separate housing project and the assessee is eligible

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

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

section 80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier A.Ys should be withdrawn. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, since the assessee has completed the construction of 4 buildings containing various residential units, each block also can be considered as a separate housing project and the assessee is eligible

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that the money is expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case, (supra