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

pricing pressures, which is common among developers in a highly competitive sector. 35 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV 16.4. We have also noted the off-balance sheet items of liabilities i.e. Contingent liabilities and observe that there's a significant increase in contingent liabilities, especially in guarantees for joint ventures and disputed tax and royalty demands, which indicate growing exposure

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

pricing pressures,\nwhich is common among developers in a highly competitive sector.\n16. 4. We have also noted the off-balance sheet items of liabilities\ni.e. Contingent liabilities and observe that there's a significant\nincrease in contingent liabilities, especially in guarantees for joint\nventures and disputed tax and royalty demands, which indicate\ngrowing exposure to financial and operational risks

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

pricing pressures,\nwhich is common among developers in a highly competitive sector.\n\n16. 4. We have also noted the off-balance sheet items of liabilities\ni.e. Contingent liabilities and observe that there's a significant\nincrease in contingent liabilities, especially in guarantees for joint\nventures and disputed tax and royalty demands, which indicate\ngrowing exposure to financial and operational

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

pricing pressures,\nwhich is common among developers in a highly competitive sector.\n\n16. 4. We have also noted the off-balance sheet items of liabilities\ni.e. Contingent liabilities and observe that there's a significant\nincrease in contingent liabilities, especially in guarantees for joint\nventures and disputed tax and royalty demands, which indicate\ngrowing exposure to financial and operational

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

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

price adjustment should not\nexceed 100% and the weightage for the above shall be verified\nduring each quarter and also at the final bill stage.\n- The retention money shall be retained by the officers of\nSupdt. Engineer which would be at 7.5% of the bill amount.\n- Clause 47 deals with mobilization advance is not part of the\ncontract

CONCENTRIX CATALYST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our aforesaid observations

B‘Bench, Hyderabad\nश्री रविश सूद, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री मधुसूदन सावड़िया लेखा सदस्य समक्ष |\nBefore Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member\nAND\nShri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member\nआ.अपी.सं / ITA No.963/Hyd/2024\n(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21)\nM/s. Concentrix Catalyst Vs. Dy.CIT\nTechnologies (P) Ltd\nHydarabad\nCircle 1(1)\nHydarabad\nPAN:AABCE3119N\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nनिर्धारिती द्वारा

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

120, 97 and 97 days, respectively. The ld. AR for the assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. Ld. DR objected for the same. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised

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

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

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

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

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

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

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

prices of materials, cost of laborers, overhead expenses etc. Therefore the Assessee is not merely a works contractor, but was engaged in development of project as a whole, and therefore, entitled for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, though not being the owner of the facility. It was contended that 14 M/s. HES Infra

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

120; [(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer;] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this

VENKATA KRISHNA TATINENI,SECUNDERBAD vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

120; ITA No.604/Hyd/2023 9 82[(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer;] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, उपाध् यक्ष एिं श्री मिुसूदन सािडिया, लेखा सदस् य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1376/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) M/s. Signode India Limited, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. PAN:AAHCS8120M (Appellant