DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

801A(4)(i)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not a 'developer as it is not operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility but only maintaining the infrastructure facility during the warranty period. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i)(¢) of the Act without considering the fact that

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

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

801A of the I.T. Act. The assessee, therefore, prays the Hon'ble ITAT to kindly dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the sole objection of the AO is that the infrastructure facility created by the assessee -- the formation of ‘Venkatadri Reservoir Bund

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

801A(4) of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed.” 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 6.1. First, we will deal with the additional grounds raised by the assessee. 7. Before us, the ld.AR submitted that the assessment order was passed

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD

IV PALAHARI-PITRI (RKD-KMC JV\n3\nCONSTRUCTION OF IMPORTANT AND MAJOR STEEL / PSC GIRDER BRIDGES, ALONG WITH SUBSTRUCTURE, SUPERSTRUCTURE AND RELATED PROTECTION WORKS IN CONNECTION WITH PART OF BINA KOTA DOUBLING IN KOTA BHOPAL DIVISION OF WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY IN THE STATE OF M.P & RAJASTHAN (KMC-MEIL-BEBL JV\n10\nWIDENING & STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING NATIONAL HIGHWAY FROM 2 LANE

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

801A.\n23.2 From the above reading, it is clear that prior to the insertion\nof the Finance Act, 2007, there was no such Explanation, and it\nwas only by way of the Explanation that a specific category of\npersons executing works contracts was excluded from Section\n80IA of the Act. This exclusion applied only to works contracts'\nawarded

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

801A.\n\n23.2 From the above reading, it is clear that prior to the insertion\nof the Finance Act, 2007, there was no such Explanation, and it\nwas only by way of the Explanation that a specific category of\npersons executing works contracts was excluded from Section\n80IA of the Act. This exclusion applied only to works contracts'\nawarded

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

801A(4) of the Act.\n\n7.9 At this juncture, it is important to note that there is a clear difference\nand distinction between the terms \"developer\" and \"contractor\". Further,\nnormally, any \"works contract\" awarded by the Government to a\ncontractor by way of a tender process would fall under the ambit of the\ncontractor rather than developer. This issue

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

4. Thereafter, the AO, after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance under section 14A r.w rule 8D: Rs. 74,92,000/-; (ii) disallowance of the claim of the assessee company for deduction under section 80G w.r.t CSR donations: Rs. 1,88,97,644/-; (iii) disallowance of the claim of deduction of the assessee company under Section 801A

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

iv) addition under section 68 in respect\nof alleged bogus transactions with M/s. Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd: Rs.\n1,29,91,000/-, determined he income of the assessee company vide his\norder passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated\n26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-.\n5.\nAggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter

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

68,23,313/- before setting-off of brought forward business losses. After setting off the losses brought forward from the earlier years, the Gross Total Income in terms of Section 80A of the Act was NIL. Accordingly, the assessee could not have claimed any deduction under Part-C of Chapter VI-A of the Act, because

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

IV, of which the appellant was a 45% member, that the other constituent, Maytas, required the appellant to complete its share of 55% of the work and therefore, the appellant completed the entire work. The AR submitted that similarly for the construction of BG Tunnel no. 17. the work had been allotted to Sushee-TTs JV in which the appellant

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

IV, of which the appellant was a 45% member, that the other constituent, Maytas, required the appellant to complete its share of 55% of the work and therefore, the appellant completed the entire work. The AR submitted that similarly for the construction of BG Tunnel no. 17. the work had been allotted to Sushee-TTs JV in which the appellant