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

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price over and above the fair market value of the share. He has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below.\n5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.45 lakhs u/sec.56(2)(viib) of the Act in Para nos.1 to 3 of the Order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2, HYDERABAD vs. ARUDRA VELLANKI , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

price only. Mr. Goutam sought to draw a distinction herein that it is section 50B which is sought to be applied in the learned lower authorities’ proceedings. We note that we are in Assessment Year 2012-13 whereas section 50D applies from 1.4.2013 only without having any retrospective effect. We therefore hold that the CIT(A) has rightly directed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2, HYDERABAD vs. PADMAVATHI VELLANKI , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

price only. Mr. Goutam sought to draw a distinction herein that it is section 50B which is sought to be applied in the learned lower authorities’ proceedings. We note that we are in Assessment Year 2012-13 whereas section 50D applies from 1.4.2013 only without having any retrospective effect. We therefore hold that the CIT(A) has rightly directed

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

50B(3) of the Act\nalong with Explanation (2). He submitted that in the\nnet worth computed by the assessee and in the AO,\nthere is only one difference. It was submitted that the\nassessee following the Explanation-2 below section\n50B(3) of the Act has adopted written down value of\nthe block asset in case of the depreciable

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

50B(3) of the Act\nalong with Explanation (2). He submitted that in the\nnet worth computed by the assessee and in the AO,\nthere is only one difference. It was submitted that the\nassessee following the Explanation-2 below section\n50B(3) of the Act has adopted written down value of\nthe block asset in case of the depreciable

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

50B(3) of the Act\nalong with Explanation (2). He submitted that in the\nnet worth computed by the assessee and in the AO,\nthere is only one difference. It was submitted that the\nassessee following the Explanation-2 below section\n50B(3) of the Act has adopted written down value of\nthe block asset in case of the depreciable