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

section 56(2) (viib), with effect from 1-4-2013 onwards, which authorizes the assessing of the excess premium as income in the hands of the Investee company. However, there is no corresponding/ parallel provision, enabling disallowance of cost in the hands of the investor. Page 6 of 22 ITA Nos 1106 and 1107 of 2017 Alpha Villas

SHRI RAMPRIYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

capital expenditure or personal expenses of/ the assessee), laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. Explanation - for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Capital 10,44,14,475 Gains 4 Income from other 17,65,05,274 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. sources 5 Total income from (+) various heads other 28,24,69,118 than “Profits and gains of business or profession” 6. However, while computing the total income, the assessee claimed set off of the loss under the head business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Capital 10,44,14,475 Gains 4 Income from other 17,65,05,274 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. sources 5 Total income from (+) various heads other 28,24,69,118 than “Profits and gains of business or profession” 6. However, while computing the total income, the assessee claimed set off of the loss under the head business

CHANDRALOK HOTELS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

capital gains tax. On perusal of additional evidence filed by the assessee on 19/07/2018, the assessee has filed the same with regard to market value of the property as per SRO, in which, the sale price mentioned at Rs. 28,000/- per sq.yd. on 27/05/2010, but, on this day transfer of the property was not effected as per section

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain in the hands of shareholders are exempted under section 47(vii) of the Act or not is very important before deciding the goodwill arise in case of amalgamation or not. 16.3 Further, we have also gone through the fifth proviso to section 32 of the Act, which is to the following effect: “Provided also that the aggregate deduction

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

221/- and determined the taxable income at Rs. Nil. He however, accepted the book profit declared by the assessee at Rs.70,09,87,659/-. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) which was pending for disposal. Page 2 of 35 ITA No 864 of 2017 Rain Cements Ltd Hyderabad 5. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

221 is that the impugned deduction claim has nowhere been quantified in light of Form 3CL and 3CM having not got approved by the prescribed authority i.e. DSIR. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments in light of this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision (2021) 187 ITD 214 (Bangalore) Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

221 is that the impugned deduction claim has nowhere been quantified in light of Form 3CL and 3CM having not got approved by the prescribed authority i.e. DSIR. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments in light of this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision (2021) 187 ITD 214 (Bangalore) Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

221 is that the impugned deduction claim has nowhere been quantified in light of Form 3CL and 3CM having not got approved by the prescribed authority i.e. DSIR. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments in light of this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision (2021) 187 ITD 214 (Bangalore) Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

221 is that the impugned deduction claim has nowhere been quantified in light of Form 3CL and 3CM having not got approved by the prescribed authority i.e. DSIR. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments in light of this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision (2021) 187 ITD 214 (Bangalore) Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT

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

capital or by availing finance from banks or other financial institutions. On other hand, as admitted by the assessee itself, in order to implement the project, initially, the assessee received mobilisation advance @5% of project cost from the Government. The details of mobilisation advance received by the assessee during the FY 2005-06 relevant to the impugned

MR. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains as per the value of the property, after including the expenses of stamp duty and registration etc. 3.1. Taking the above statements into consideration, the assessee was again summoned by the Assessing Officer and :- 4 -: ITA. Nos. 1141/Hyd/2012 1132/Hyd/2012 his sworn statement was recorded, during the course of which, the assessee stated that no amount, over and above

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains income and unsecured loans 3 which were duly reflected in the statement of affairs of the relevant assessment years. He also claimed exemption towards possession of gold for the family members as per the guidelines of CBDT. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the assessee has not adduced any evidence like bills / vouchers, bank payments etc., with regard

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)

capital or by availing finance from banks or other financial institutions. On other hand, as admitted by the assessee itself, in order to implement the project, initially, the assessee received mobilisation advance @5% of project cost from the Government. The details of mobilisation advance received by the assessee during the FY 2005-06 relevant to the impugned

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

capital or by availing finance from banks or other financial institutions. On other hand, as admitted by the assessee itself, in order to implement the project, initially, the assessee received mobilisation advance @5% of project cost from the Government. The details of mobilisation advance received by the assessee during the FY 2005-06 relevant to the impugned

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

221) and pleaded before C.I.T (Appeals) that no disallowance of interest is warranted. In the light of the facts submitted hereinabove, the assessee submits that disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) is not correct. 18. As regards disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.rule 80(2)(iii) it has been held in the case of Priya Exhibitors pvt. Ltd., vs ACIT

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

221) and pleaded before C.I.T (Appeals) that no disallowance of interest is warranted. In the light of the facts submitted hereinabove, the assessee submits that disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) is not correct. 18. As regards disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.rule 80(2)(iii) it has been held in the case of Priya Exhibitors pvt. Ltd., vs ACIT