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

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim

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

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim

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

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim

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

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim

SYNFOSYS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2011-12 Synfosys Business Vs. Income Tax Officer, Solutions Ltd., Ward-3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aafcs 3590 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

5. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO who had levied penalty of Rs. 32,99,764/- in the hands of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 271

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS & RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD.,),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10A deduction on the expenditure disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). 12. Disallowing the income tax expenditure of Rs. 5,91,248 without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B

ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. SCI IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Sci It Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward – 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 7864 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

10A deduction of Rs. 2,54,08,483/- on the ground that assessee claimed such deduction for 11th year and the same is allowable only for 10 consequent years up to AY 2010-11. The disallowance made was accepted and no appeal was filed against order u/s 143(3)rws 263. 4. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceeds u/s 271

PALRED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 10A of the Act, and there is no incentive for shifting of profits; Rejection of internal comparable transactions 4. Not considering the internal uncontrolled transactions of the Appellant for determining the ALP. Information obtained under section 133(6) 5. a) Using information/ documents obtained by exercising powers u/ s 133(6) of the Act which are not available

PLANET ONLINE PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmana.Y.2011-12

section 92C(2) of the Act. 10. Erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim of assessee company u/ s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,12,790/-. 11. Erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/ s 10AA of the Act for Rs. 61,644/-. 11.a Ought to have appreciated