PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

120 or section 124; (b) an order specified in clauses (a) to (e) (both inclusive) and clauses (i) to (l) (both inclusive) of sub-section (1) or an order under section 104, as it stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1988 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

120 or section 124; (b) an order specified in clauses (a) to (e) (both inclusive) and clauses (i) to (l) (both inclusive) of sub-section (1) or an order under section 104, as it stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1988 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

120 or section 124; (b) an order specified in clauses (a) to (e) (both inclusive) and clauses (i) to (l) (both inclusive) of sub-section (1) or an order under section 104, as it stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1988 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

120 or section 124; (b) an order specified in clauses (a) to (e) (both inclusive) and clauses (i) to (l) (both inclusive) of sub-section (1) or an order under section 104, as it stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1988 in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

271 / Hyd / 2011, dated 07.09.2012 is\nborne in mind wherein it was held:\n“....... The Assessing Officer has to see whether the assessee carried on\ncontract for sale or contract for sale and the applicability of Explanation\nbelow Section 80IA(13) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to\nexamine the terms of contract including the nature of obligations

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti

GUNTI NAVEEN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti

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

120 Taxman 315/[2001] 251 ITR 873 (Guj.). This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 81/194 Taxman 415 [2012] 344 ITR 166, has taken a similar view. 33 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 8. However, the Petitioners are faced with the statutory provision contained in sub-section (5) of section

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

120 Taxman 315/[2001] 251 ITR 873 (Guj.). This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 81/194 Taxman 415 [2012] 344 ITR 166, has taken a similar view. 33 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 8. However, the Petitioners are faced with the statutory provision contained in sub-section (5) of section

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

120 Taxman 315/[2001] 251 ITR 873 (Guj.). This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 81/194 Taxman 415 [2012] 344 ITR 166, has taken a similar view. 33 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 8. However, the Petitioners are faced with the statutory provision contained in sub-section (5) of section

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

120 Taxman 315/[2001] 251 ITR 873 (Guj.). This Court also in case of Danny Denzongpa v. CIT [2010] 7 taxmann.com 81/194 Taxman 415 [2012] 344 ITR 166, has taken a similar view. 33 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 8. However, the Petitioners are faced with the statutory provision contained in sub-section (5) of section

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB 73[, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, 74[section 115JB 75[, section 115JC] or section 115VW] 76[or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB 73[, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, 74[section 115JB 75[, section 115JC] or section 115VW] 76[or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB 73[, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, 74[section 115JB 75[, section 115JC] or section 115VW] 76[or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section