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

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

1)(a) of the Act contemplates that the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139. The Ld. AR submitted that the same language has been employed by the legislature in section 148 of the Act. Elaborating further on his contention

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) returns dt.29.09.2012 and 30.11.2013 which followed the Transfer Pricing Officer’s “TPO” section 92CA(3) orders dt.29.01.2016 and 31.10.2016; respectively. Suffice to say, the impugned search action took place thereafter on 09.11.2016 followed by the DRP’s directions dt.20.12.2016 in A.Y. 2012-13. Both these assessments thereafter stood treated as “abated” ones in light of section 153A

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) returns dt.29.09.2012 and 30.11.2013 which followed the Transfer Pricing Officer’s “TPO” section 92CA(3) orders dt.29.01.2016 and 31.10.2016; respectively. Suffice to say, the impugned search action took place thereafter on 09.11.2016 followed by the DRP’s directions dt.20.12.2016 in A.Y. 2012-13. Both these assessments thereafter stood treated as “abated” ones in light of section 153A

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) returns dt.29.09.2012 and 30.11.2013 which followed the Transfer Pricing Officer’s “TPO” section 92CA(3) orders dt.29.01.2016 and 31.10.2016; respectively. Suffice to say, the impugned search action took place thereafter on 09.11.2016 followed by the DRP’s directions dt.20.12.2016 in A.Y. 2012-13. Both these assessments thereafter stood treated as “abated” ones in light of section 153A

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) returns dt.29.09.2012 and 30.11.2013 which followed the Transfer Pricing Officer’s “TPO” section 92CA(3) orders dt.29.01.2016 and 31.10.2016; respectively. Suffice to say, the impugned search action took place thereafter on 09.11.2016 followed by the DRP’s directions dt.20.12.2016 in A.Y. 2012-13. Both these assessments thereafter stood treated as “abated” ones in light of section 153A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards sale of commercial space in Sarat City Capital Mall, capital gain on sale of property, addition towards

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

transferring it to the State Government, the assessee was granted the right to collect toll from motorists whoever uses the said infrastructure facility during the specified period. The said right to collect toll was on account of assessee incurring the cost towards development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility, which was treated by the assessee as its intangible asset

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

transferring it to the State Government, the assessee was granted the right to collect toll from motorists whoever uses the said infrastructure facility during the specified period. The said right to collect toll was on account of assessee incurring the cost towards development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility, which was treated by the assessee as its intangible asset

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

transferring it to the State Government, the assessee was granted the right to collect toll from motorists whoever uses the said infrastructure facility during the specified period. The said right to collect toll was on account of assessee incurring the cost towards development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility, which was treated by the assessee as its intangible asset