NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

depreciation for assets acquired in earlier years since the capital expenditure was not allowed by Revenue during assessments completed. The learned Assessing Officer erred in granting lesser credit for TDS

T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(3, HYDERABAD vs. MYTRAH WIND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Mytrah Wind Developers Private Limited, Ward – 16(3), Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaicm1274H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023

depreciation @ 25% of the said value. vi) The assessee has claimed credit for the entire TDS of Rs. 63,19,418/- made

AISWARYA ART CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE -13, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Aiswarya Art Vs. Income Tax Officer, Creations Pvt. Ltd., Ward 15(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aagca7479J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Kumar Aditya, (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.04.05.2018 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Satellite Rights. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 2 26.12.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,47,243. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly, Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Were Issued. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee For Which Summon U/S. 131 Of The Act Was Issued & The Statement Of The Assessee Was Recorded On 29.01.2014 Wherein He Agreed To Furnish The Required Information By 30.01.2014. Since There Was No Compliance Despite Number Of Opportunities, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Complete The Assessment U/S.144 Of The Act.

TDS has been made on the same. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has even disallowed the depreciation, power expenses, telephone expenses

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciation claimed on Film Software Library. The Assessing Officer while computing the tax payable granted 5. credit for TDS of Rs.6

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and\nthe revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of\nour observations recorded hereinabove

TDS and remitted the same to the\ncredit of the government.\n7.\nThe Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not allowing depreciation

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

TDS and remitted the same to the credit of the government. 7. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in not allowing depreciation

OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) P. LTD. MAHABUBNAGAR (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SAINT GOBAIN VETROTEX INDIA LTD),MAHABUBNAGAR DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2004-05 Owens Corning Industries Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (India) Private Limited Of Income Tax, (Previously Known As Saint Circle 3(1), Gobain Vetrotex India Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacv9858N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2004-05 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 21.12.2015 In Case No.0217/Dcit, Cir.3(1)/2014-15/ Cit(A)-4/Hyd/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’].

TDS, the same cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 40)a)(a) of the Act. Hence, the bushing charges of Rs. 80,99,675/- claimed as revenue expenditure is disallowed an added back to the total Income. An amount of Rs. 1,02,33,118/- towards additional metal charges which is capitalized by the appellant and claimed depreciation

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation of earlier assessment years. 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in considering short credit of TDS

DIWAKAR ROAD LINES,ANANTAHAPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the transport vehicles is in question for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2016-17; whereas the remuneration admitted to the partners and also the non deduction of TDS

DIWAKAR ROAD LINES,ANANTAPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the transport vehicles is in question for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2016-17; whereas the remuneration admitted to the partners and also the non deduction of TDS

DIWAKAR ROAD LINES,ANANTAPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the transport vehicles is in question for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2016-17; whereas the remuneration admitted to the partners and also the non deduction of TDS

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS compliances. ITA No.895 896 and 4 1266/Hyd/2018 e) addition of 50% of sales promotion expenses of Rs.13,13,955/- amounting to Rs.6,56,978/- due to non- production of bills and vouchers. f) addition of Rs.1,27,840/- on account of depreciation

AP TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 A.P Tourism Development Vs. Dy. Cit Corporation Ltd, Circle 1(1) Vijayawada Hyderabad Pan:Aadca9817H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate R. Mohan Kumar Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 13/02/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An A.P State Government Corporation Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Established With The Main Objective Of Developing Tourism Infrastructure In The State Of Andhra Pradesh. The Corporation Is A State Govt. Company Since 1976. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.9,95,84,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Delivered Electronically To The Page 1 Of 6

depreciation of Rs.56,04,368/-. The Assessing Officer further noted from the 26AS statement that the assessee has received the following amount during the year: S.No Description of the Section under which TDS

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

depreciation of Rs. 83,54,180 while computing the impugned tax demand of Rs. 6,80,57,929, hence the same shall qualify for deletion. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding the order of the learned assessing officer by not giving credit to the TDS

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. PONNAMBALAM KRISHNAN, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

TDS on audit fees as well as interest paid on vehicle loan is 9 C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 a plausible view. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hence we affirm the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A). 22. The next ground relates to the disallowance of depreciation

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

depreciation on the same. 7.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred disallowing the foreign remittance made towards R&D Services availed from Dr. Reddy's Research & Development B.V. (formerly known as Octoplus B.V.) and Support services avalled from Dr Reddy's Laboratories Inc USA under section