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 gain by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission of the assessee by the ld.AR that once the assessee had disclosed all the information to the Assessing Officer, then it is for the Assessing Officer to use his power under the Act for making the additions in the hands of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the additions

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Gain\n(LTCG). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that\nas Village: Manchirevula falls within Rajendranagar Revenue\nMandal, therefore, it could not have been taken as a part and\nparcel of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The Ld. AR submitted\nthat \"Rajendranagar” is also one of the Municipal Corporation.\nElaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that

KHAIRUNNISA,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Khairunnisa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, R/O.8-5-85, Ward 11(3), Road No.1, Hyderabad. Mallikarjuna Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Pan : Anvpk4801B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

capital gains. Hence, notice u/s 148 of the Act dt.16.03.2016 was issued and served on 17.03.2016. As there was no response from the assessee, again notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. As the assessment was getting barred by limitation of time by 31.12.2016 and due to assessee’s non-compliance, Assessing Officer finally

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the addition of Rs.11,44,51,818/- (supra) made by the\nAO, which, thereafter, had been sustained by the CIT(A), is vacated.\nThe Grounds of appeal Nos.3.1 to 3.4 are allowed in terms o...

gain tax\nbenefits can be disregarded. The revenue's contention is also fortified by the\ndecision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Realest Builders & Services\nLtd. (2008) 307 ITR 202 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that accounting\nchanges that are not consistently followed cannot be accepted. It is therefore\nfallacious on the part

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. BLUJAY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KEWILL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2014-15

section, the law has specified the following 6 categories of intangible assets eligible for depreciation: (i) Know-how (ii) Patents (iii) Copyrights (iv) Trademarks (v) Licences (vi) Franchises 11. Therefore, he held that all intangible assets are not eligible for depreciation. He noted that in any business concern the value or the reputation built in the organization represents Page

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

gaining any goodwill. According to him, the payment made to Sr. Managers cannot be considered for deduction from the asset value. With regard to debt, withholdings and deductions also, he submitted that it is not known whether they are related to the assets or not and therefore, the valuation of the goodwill suffers from serious flaws, because the payments which

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

gaining any goodwill. According to him, the payment made to Sr. Managers cannot be considered for deduction from the asset value. With regard to debt, withholdings and deductions also, he submitted that it is not known whether they are related to the assets or not and therefore, the valuation of the goodwill suffers from serious flaws, because the payments which

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 32(1)(U) of the Act?. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the directions of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against depreciation granted by AO treating

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

364/- and brought it to tax. 2.1. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred a appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the same partly by following the order of ITAT in assessee’s own case for the AY 2014-15 wherein ITAT has directed to treat the income from letting of flats as ‘income from house property’ and income from furniture & fixtures

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

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

gaining momentum in the years 1995 to 2000 and regional language television has grown from 2001-02. UKM & UKTV, are one of the earliest production houses with large base of satellite rights in feature films and tele-software and thus have a strong foothold in the TV market. The proportion of advertisement revenue attributable to the programmes produced

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

364/- and Rs.4,50,55,095/- (totaling to Rs.15,72,42,459/-) as against the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. This relief cannot be granted as the sum of the amount would be more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.2 and the additional grounds raised

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

364/- and Rs.4,50,55,095/- (totaling to Rs.15,72,42,459/-) as against the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. This relief cannot be granted as the sum of the amount would be more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.2 and the additional grounds raised

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

364/- and Rs.4,50,55,095/- (totaling to Rs.15,72,42,459/-) as against the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. This relief cannot be granted as the sum of the amount would be more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.2 and the additional grounds raised

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

364/- and Rs.4,50,55,095/- (totaling to Rs.15,72,42,459/-) as against the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. This relief cannot be granted as the sum of the amount would be more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.2 and the additional grounds raised

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

364/- and Rs.4,50,55,095/- (totaling to Rs.15,72,42,459/-) as against the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. This relief cannot be granted as the sum of the amount would be more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.2 and the additional grounds raised

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

364/- and Rs.4,50,55,095/- (totaling to Rs.15,72,42,459/-) as against the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. This relief cannot be granted as the sum of the amount would be more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.2 and the additional grounds raised

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

364/- and Rs.4,50,55,095/- (totaling to Rs.15,72,42,459/-) as against the addition of Rs.13,42,84,130/-. This relief cannot be granted as the sum of the amount would be more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.2 and the additional grounds raised