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

80 of the IT Act. The Page 8 of 23 DBS Technology Services India Private Limited. assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. But a revised return of income, under Section 139(5) cannot be filed, to withdraw the claim and subsequently claiming the carried forward

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

80-IA (4) "(4) This section applies to- (i) any enterprise carrying on the business [of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining] any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions) namely:- (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies [or by an authority

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

80-IA (4) "(4) This section applies to- (i) any enterprise carrying on the business [of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining] any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions) namely:- (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies [or by an authority

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house property and other sources. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.49,28,566/- under section 80IA(4)(iv) in respect of profits derived from the solar power unit. The return of income was filed by the assessee within the extended due date of 15th March, 2022. The audit report in Form No.10CCB was required to be filed before one month

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

House No. 10-3-734/3 (admeasuring 271.66 square yards) situated at Vijaya Nagar Colony, Mallepally, Hyderabad, Telangana for a sale consideration of Rs. 72.54 lacs. That prior to the sale of the aforesaid property the assessee and his wife Smt. Indira Reddy, had vide an “agreement to sell”, dated 22/06/2015 agreed to purchase a semi-finished Villa

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

property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is identified; Emphasis is on comparable uncontrolled transactions or a number of transactions - hence median price for other parties charged by power unit is CUP and the AO was right in applying the same. Para 6.5.7 of the TPO order ( page

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 54F of the I T Act. During the relevant period the assessee was not the owner of the residential property although he had full control over the property. Before the AO, the appellant has stated that his father is free to gift this property to any other person. Thus, I find that that the assessee has hypothetically attempted

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

80-IB deduction for A, D & E Blocks, the revenue from which is disclosed in A.Y 2012-13 is a finding not necessary for the disposal of appeal and therefore must be deleted". 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm, engaged in the business of construction of flats, filed its return of income

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

80-IB deduction for A, D & E Blocks, the revenue from which is disclosed in A.Y 2012-13 is a finding not necessary for the disposal of appeal and therefore must be deleted". 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm, engaged in the business of construction of flats, filed its return of income

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

80-IB deduction for A, D & E Blocks, the revenue from which is disclosed in A.Y 2012-13 is a finding not necessary for the disposal of appeal and therefore must be deleted". 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm, engaged in the business of construction of flats, filed its return of income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

80,00,000/- out of his own savings and borrowals in property No. 916, Road No. 46, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and that the construction of house property was completed and was being self occupied by the assessee and that he does not own any other house and hence, he claimed deduction of Rs.3

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

House Property' offered by the Appellant. :- 6 -: K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Thereafter, the Ld AO., after discussing and verifying the eligibility of the deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act allowed a deduction under that section

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

House keeping for common area. ITA-TP No.1856/Hyd/2019 18 8. Electricity and lighting for common areas. 9. Landscape maintenance, as applicable. 10. Pest Control in common areas only. 11. Toilet upkeep – common area toilets only. 12. Parking (Four/Two wheeler) Management.” 8.4 On perusal of both the agreements entered into by the assessee with its tenants, we found that the income

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

house at the time of claiming\ndeduction under Section 54F of the Act; and (ii) based on the\nexamination of the SRO certificate, GST and Municipal Tax receipts\nto verify as to for what purpose the subject properties were approved\nby the municipal authorities; and (iii) that as the assessee who had\npaid more than 80

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

80-IA. This was aimed at expanding the scope of the term ‘infrastructure facility’ to include a wider range of projects, especially in the water and sanitation sectors. 23. Explanation Inserted by Finance Act, 2007: The Finance Act, 2007, inserted an explanation to Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act that specifically excluded "works contracts" from being eligible

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

80-IA.\nThis was aimed at expanding the scope of the term 'infrastructure\nfacility' to include a wider range of projects, especially in the water\nand sanitation sectors.\n23. Explanation Inserted by Finance Act, 2007:\nThe Finance Act, 2007, inserted an explanation to Section 80IA of\nthe Income Tax Act that specifically excluded \"works contracts\"\nfrom being eligible

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

80-IA.\n\nThis was aimed at expanding the scope of the term 'infrastructure\nfacility' to include a wider range of projects, especially in the water\nand sanitation sectors.\n\n23. Explanation Inserted by Finance Act, 2007:\n\nThe Finance Act, 2007, inserted an explanation to Section 80IA of\nthe Income Tax Act that specifically excluded \"works contracts\"\nfrom being

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

80-IA.\n\nThis was aimed at expanding the scope of the term 'infrastructure\nfacility' to include a wider range of projects, especially in the water\nand sanitation sectors.\n\n23.\nExplanation Inserted by Finance Act, 2007:\n\nThe Finance Act, 2007, inserted an explanation to Section 80IA of\nthe Income Tax Act that specifically excluded \"works contracts\"\nfrom being