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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re- opened

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re- opened

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

80A (5) of the Act in the context of the power of the CIT or the Appellate Tribunal. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed.” 34 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 33. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be permitted

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

80A (5) of the Act in the context of the power of the CIT or the Appellate Tribunal. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed.” 34 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 33. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be permitted

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

80A (5) of the Act in the context of the power of the CIT or the Appellate Tribunal. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed.” 34 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 33. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be permitted

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

80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act to deny such :31: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & claims on the ground that, as per the provisions of Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any claim in his return of income for any deduction under Section 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA or under

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

80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC and claim u/s 80IA was made only in the revised return filed in consequence to survey. ii. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) should have considered the fact that it is only on after thought to claim deduction u/s 80lA consequent to survey. " iii. "Whether on the facts

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

80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC and claim u/s 80IA was made only in the revised return filed in consequence to survey. ii. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) should have considered the fact that it is only on after thought to claim deduction u/s 80lA consequent to survey. " iii. "Whether on the facts

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

80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndeny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10ВА\nor under any provision of this Chapter under

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndeniy such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA\nor under any provision of this Chapter under

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

80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndenny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10ВА\nor under any provision of this Chapter under

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

80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\nden y such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA\nor under any provision of this Chapter under