AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.791/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Amara Raja Energy & Mobility Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Tirupati – 517 520. Tirupati Pan Aabca9264E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca E Phalguna Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

capital gain arising from the sale of mutual fund as well as re- valuation of the mutual fund and, therefore, these aspects are very much required to be verified with reference to the books of accounts along with other supporting documents. Similarly, the profit on sale of asset claimed as transfer of depreciable

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

depreciation for that year. 7.1.1 For calculating capital gains, as these assets i.e. ships fall under depreciable assets category, the special

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

depreciation for that year. 7.1.1 For calculating capital gains, as these assets i.e. ships fall under depreciable assets category, the special

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

depreciation for that year. 7.1.1 For calculating capital gains, as these assets i.e. ships fall under depreciable assets category, the special

TN (DK) EXPRESSWAYS LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Tn(Dk) Expressways Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward -2(2), C/O. P. Murali & Co., Hyderabad. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, 1St Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 82. Pan : Aacct5634J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rohit Mujumdar. Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2008-09 Arises From The Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 29.02.2016, In Case No.0226/2014-15 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

gains of Rs.52,60,062 (Sale value of Rs.l,03,77,38,229/- minus Purchase value of Rs.l,03,91,421). The contention of the Assessing Officer is that the Appellant had capitalized interest and claimed depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

capital gains is exhaustively defined as “the amount actually paid for acquiring” such shares u/s Page 12 of 22 ITA Nos 1106 and 1107 of 2017 Alpha Villas Pvt Ltd 55(2)(aa)(i) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has not questioned the fact that the Appellant has not actually paid for acquiring the shares. The appellant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

capital gains is exhaustively defined as “the amount actually paid for acquiring” such shares u/s Page 12 of 22 ITA Nos 1106 and 1107 of 2017 Alpha Villas Pvt Ltd 55(2)(aa)(i) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has not questioned the fact that the Appellant has not actually paid for acquiring the shares. The appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. RASA AGROTECH PVT.LTD., SEC'BAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal as well as

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Cit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Rasa Agrotech Pvt Hyderabad. Ltd, Secunderabad.

capital gain on transfer of depreciable assets shall be treated as short term capital gains. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee

ITO, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PADMA VAMSI TEXTILE MARKET PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Padma Vamsi Textile Market Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aadcp 3957F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Komali Krishna Assessee By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Murthy Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-05-2019

gain. Section 50 is thus a deeming provision and it applied to the depreciable assets. Section 50A is a special provision for determining the cost of acquisition in case of depreciable assets which was also applied by the appellant company in the computation of the cost. Further, if section 50C is to be applied in a case where capital

CANARA SECURITIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Canara Securities Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hydereabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan – Aaacc8283G Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ramkishore Jhawar Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2019 O R D E R

depreciation allowance of Rs. 6,660/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and there is no 143(3) assessment in this case. 2.1 Subsequently, the AO received specific information that the assessee had contrived losses by using Client Code 2 I.T.A. No. 2321Hyd/18 Canara Securities

TEKSYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as directed above

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

capital gains would be very marginal as compared to the eligible depreciation and that payment of capital gain tax does

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

capital gains- Rs. 5,00,00,000/- 2. Addition of direct depreciation on construction equipment to the WIP of projects

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gains tax. (ii) As the details of STT are not on record, the exemption u/s 10(38) of .64,47,895/- requires to be disallowed. (iii) Assessee claimed depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gains tax. (ii) As the details of STT are not on record, the exemption u/s 10(38) of .64,47,895/- requires to be disallowed. (iii) Assessee claimed depreciation

DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GOCL CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Gocl Corporation Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(2) Pan:Aabcg8433B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Y Ratnakar Revenue By: Smt.Th Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.11.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2009-10. 2. There Is A Delay Of 74 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing Both Sides, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

capital gains and credit for TDS and quantification for carry forward unabsorbed depreciation are concerned, the same was restored back

THULASI CHAMARTHY,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

capital gain on the sale of the subject property of Rs.81,62,440/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 9. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation on building from which rent was earned not to be allowed, disallowance under section 14A of the Act and interest on borrowed capital allowed under section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards exempt income on capital gains

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation on building from which rent was earned not to be allowed, disallowance under section 14A of the Act and interest on borrowed capital allowed under section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards exempt income on capital gains