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

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

transfer pricing adjustment. 4. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act and issued notice to the assessee on 08.03.2024. The Ld. PCIT recorded that the Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment failed to examine two specific issues, which is covered under Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Act, thereby rendering the order erroneous

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

transfer). It was submitted that the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was merely acting as civil contractor and not a developer as the funds for raising the agricultural facilities were provided by the State Government and further, it was mentioned that the assessee was having the mobilization advances of 5% is not correct It was submitted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section 80-IA(3)(ii) of the Act." Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad The other common observation by the AD on the issue

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section 80-IA(3)(ii) of the Act." Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad The other common observation by the AD on the issue

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section 80-IA(3)(ii) of the Act." Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos 2051 and 2052 of 2018 and ITA No.481 of 2020 Gayatri Projects Ltd Hyderabad The other common observation by the AD on the issue

KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.36,77,04,171/- made on account of specified domestic transactions relating to the assessee's infrastructure projects. It was submitted that during the year, the assessee had undertaken 23 projects eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and 15 projects not eligible for deduction under section

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and documentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any adjustment. 4. Thereafter

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in respect of specified domestic transactions reported by the assessee company. The TPO, after examining the submissions and documentation furnished by the assessee company, passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining the arm's length price (ALP) of the specified domestic transactions and did not propose any adjustment. 4. Thereafter

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

VALUELABS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी. सं/Ita No.1609/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Valuelabs Llp, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Pan: Aakfv2276K Central Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 06/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 27/09/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 23/11/2021. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

7. The controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether or not the income from the sale of RECs is liable for tax at the concessional rate of tax contemplated under section 115BBG of the Act, and if not, then whether such income would qualify for deduction under section 801A

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

801A(4) of the Act. 7.9 At this juncture, it is important to note that there is a clear difference and distinction between the terms "developer" and "contractor". Further, normally, any "works contract" awarded by the Government to a contractor by way of a tender process would fall under the ambit of the contractor rather than developer. This issue