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

801A of\nthe Act: Rs. 24,35,05,411/-; and (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

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

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

68,113/- and 234B Rs.6,71,88,294/-.It is noted that the interest u/s 234A & 234B are consequential in nature, hence dismissed.\n6.8 The grounds no.1 & 7 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication.\n7.0 To sum-up, the appeal is partly allowed.\n9. The revenue being aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the mater

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

801A of the Act, of an amount being Rs. 30,60,57,963/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Authorities below ought to have considered the tax relief claimed by the Appellant, an amount being Rs. 12,22,825/-, under section 90/90A of the Act, under the fact and circumstances of the case

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

801A of the Act, of an amount being Rs. 30,60,57,963/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Authorities below ought to have considered the tax relief claimed by the Appellant, an amount being Rs. 12,22,825/-, under section 90/90A of the Act, under the fact and circumstances of the case

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

801A of the Act, of an amount being Rs. 30,60,57,963/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Authorities below ought to have considered the tax relief claimed by the Appellant, an amount being Rs. 12,22,825/-, under section 90/90A of the Act, under the fact and circumstances of the case

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

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

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

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, 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 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

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

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

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

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 , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , HYDERABAD

section 801A of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed\nappeals before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the\nassessee by passing common order dt.15.03.2019, wherein it was\nheld as under :\n“6.......\nTo sum up, the appellant is eligible for all the projects as claimed for\ndeduction u/s. 801A but for the Narayanpet

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 80IA of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment orders, assessee filed appeals before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the assessee by passing common order dt.15.03.2019, wherein it was held as under : “6……. ….. ….. To sum up, the appellant is eligible for all the projects as claimed for deduction u/s. 801A but for the Narayanpet project