CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao

243 ITR 81Supreme Court of India2000#2927 most cited

What is CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao authority for?

A building used as a nursing home qualifies as 'plant' under the Income-tax Act if it functions as a tool of the trade with which the business is carried on, as determined by the functional test.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao · plant · nursing home · functional test · depreciation · Income Tax Act · business income · tool of trade

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35DDASection 37(1)Section 5

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(3)section 10(5)section 43(3)section 14a(1)section 42section 115jb(2)strategic investmentsection 80ia(4)section 34section 80iadisallowance under section 14asection 115j

Judgments citing CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao

Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

…f the airport and are eligible to be treated as plant and machinery. The assessee also relied upon several judicial precedents including IRC v. Barclay, Curle & Co. Ltd. (76 ITR 62, HL), CIT v. Mazagaon Dock Ltd. (191 ITR 460, Bom), CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao (243 ITR 81, SC) and CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268, SC) to contend that structures which perform an operational function in the business activity and satisfy the functional test can be regarded as plant. The assessee further pointed out that the issue was also covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in its own case for earlier asses…

Thedcit, Cochin vs. M.S Cochin International Airport Ltd, Cochin

ITA 304/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…activity Is it a tool of his trade with which he carries on his business? If the answer is in the affirmative it will be a plant."' 3.3. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao [2000] 243 ITR 81/111 Taxman 635 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of this decision reads as under :— "2. The assessee is a medical practitioner. The assessee is a medical practitioner. He runs a nursing home. In respect of the building in which the nursing home is run, the assessee claimed, for the asst. yr. 1983-84, that it was a "plant". His contention was Cochin Inter…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M.S Cochin International Airport Ltd, Cochin

ITA 193/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…activity Is it a tool of his trade with which he carries on his business? If the answer is in the affirmative it will be a plant."' 3.3. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao [2000] 243 ITR 81/111 Taxman 635 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of this decision reads as under :— "2. The assessee is a medical practitioner. The assessee is a medical practitioner. He runs a nursing home. In respect of the building in which the nursing home is run, the assessee claimed, for the asst. yr. 1983-84, that it was a "plant". His contention was Cochin Inter…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Cochin International Airport Ltd, Cochin

ITA 167/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…activity Is it a tool of his trade with which he carries on his business? If the answer is in the affirmative it will be a plant."' 3.3. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao [2000] 243 ITR 81/111 Taxman 635 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of this decision reads as under :— "2. The assessee is a medical practitioner. The assessee is a medical practitioner. He runs a nursing home. In respect of the building in which the nursing home is run, the assessee claimed, for the asst. yr. 1983-84, that it was a "plant". His contention was Cochin Inter…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Cochin International Airport Ltd, Cochin

ITA 166/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: 22.08.2024
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…activity Is it a tool of his trade with which he carries on his business? If the answer is in the affirmative it will be a plant."' 3.3. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao [2000] 243 ITR 81/111 Taxman 635 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of this decision reads as under :— "2. The assessee is a medical practitioner. The assessee is a medical practitioner. He runs a nursing home. In respect of the building in which the nursing home is run, the assessee claimed, for the asst. yr. 1983-84, that it was a "plant". His contention was Cochin Inter…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Thrrissur vs. Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reciation. It is submitted that instead the use of the tempo for transportation of the goods should determine higher depreciation on the basis of functionality test. The ld AR relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dr B V Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81. ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 12 of 18 20. We heard the ld DR. The rate of depreciation on Motor cars other than those used in a business of running them on hire is at the rate of 15% and those Motor cars used in a business of running them on hire is at 30% as per the Act. The Ld AR relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CI…

Manjilas Agro Food Pvt.Ltd., Thrissur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 33/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reciation. It is submitted that instead the use of the tempo for transportation of the goods should determine higher depreciation on the basis of functionality test. The ld AR relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dr B V Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81. ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 12 of 18 20. We heard the ld DR. The rate of depreciation on Motor cars other than those used in a business of running them on hire is at the rate of 15% and those Motor cars used in a business of running them on hire is at 30% as per the Act. The Ld AR relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CI…

Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, Thrissur vs. Thacit, Circle-1(1 ), Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 32/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reciation. It is submitted that instead the use of the tempo for transportation of the goods should determine higher depreciation on the basis of functionality test. The ld AR relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dr B V Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81. ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 12 of 18 20. We heard the ld DR. The rate of depreciation on Motor cars other than those used in a business of running them on hire is at the rate of 15% and those Motor cars used in a business of running them on hire is at 30% as per the Act. The Ld AR relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CI…

Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & Research Centre (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3416/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3416/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S.Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & V. The Asst. Commissioner- Research Centre P. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.20, G.N.Chetty Road, Corporate Circle-1(2), T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaccb 2146 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjunraj, CA for Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Chinthapalli Mehar Chand
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ly and specially for carrying the patients and the medical professionals. In the course of the assessment, the ld.Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. B.Venkata Rao reported in [2000] 243 ITR 81 (SC), wherein, he pointed out that the nursing home building was considered as a ‘plant’ and the depreciation was AY 2007-08 M/s. Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & Research Center Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: accordingly, allowed at a higher rate as applicable to plant & machinery. The Ld.DR on the contrary submitted that lifts are part and parcel of the building…

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

…aperbook) wherein the Tribunal considered an identical issue, in light of newly inserted Explanation (2) to section 15 TMF Holdings Ltd., 263 and after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company limited vs CIT (243 ITR 81) (SC) held as under:- '26. The CIT has made reference to Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2015. Explanation- 2 so introduced sets out cases in which order of the AO can be deemed as erroneous. The said explanation does not dispense with compliance or existence of N there being no enquiry made by the Ld. AO; (ii)…

B.Gupteswar Patra, Nabarangpur vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/CTK/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri N. Anand RaoFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 69A

…he CIT does not agree then the order of the AO cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Ld counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 243 ITR 81 (SC) and this proposition has also been reiterated in the following judgments: i) CIT vs Maxmedia ltd (2008) 295 ITR 282 ii) Ultratech Cement Ltd vs State of Rajasthan (2020) 117 Taxmann.com 807 (SC) iii) CIT vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 Taxmann./com 272 (Bom) 5. Ld counsel further submitted that the AO has conducted sufficient enquiry as per the re…

City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-15(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 795/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2016-17 City & Industrial Development Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1)(3), Corporation Of Maharashtra Limited, Vs. Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, “Nirmal” 2Nd Floor, Nariman Point, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan No. Aaccc 3303 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(31)Section 263Section 4Section 5

…12.12.2018, then, suitable directions will be given in respect of these aspects also. 19. At last on page 11, the assessee has cited the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 243 ITR 81 and CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 I'TR 282. The judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are taken into consideration and with full respect to the judgements, it is submitted that in the case of the assessee only one view is possible and that is the acts of the assessee company are not the acts of the State and, therefore, the income of the assessee co…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 880/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 879/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 803/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 802/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 801/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

The Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Kothjagudem, Hyderabad vs. Addl.Citt, Khammam Range, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 561/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

DCIT, Circle-1, Khammam vs. The Singareni Colleries Company Lt.D, Kothagudem

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…