ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

block of assets in earlier year, only consequential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

block of assets in earlier year, only consequential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

block of assets in earlier year, only consequential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

block of assets in earlier year, only consequential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

block of assets in earlier year, only consequential depreciation can be allowed. Since assessee is claiming fresh depreciation on the goodwill, which arose in AY.2007-08, we cannot allow the ground in this assessment

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:

depreciation was claimed in Assessment Year 2014–15. It is also not the case of the assessee that the assessment for Assessment Year 2014–15 is pending or has been reopened. Thus the assessment for that year has attained finality. Under the scheme of sections 32 and 43(6) of the Act the Written Down Value of a block

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or 12 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or 12 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search

DIVJYOT CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V. RANGAREDDY vs. ITO., WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation on net block under the head “vehicles”, then the profit on sale of car cannot be assessed to tax. Thus

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation on goodwill on the amalgamation is upheld, then, the alternate claim of the assessee towards deduction u/sec.80G of the Act for donations should be considered. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, although, the DRP stated that donations by the assessee is out of CSR expenditure, but, the fact remains that, the said donation is a normal donation

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

Assessing Officer should have considered the commercials of the slump sales instead of branding it as a colourable device. Further it was submitted that in the hands of the seller, the capital gains were accepted and such capital gains. It was further argued that the assessee earned incremental revenue of 87% and incremental profit of 39% pursuant to the business

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

block of assets the value of assets received from subsidiary after reducing the depreciation “actually allowed” in the hands of the subsidiary. Therefore, as per the clear understanding of Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act , it is only the amount of depreciation which is actually allowed to the assessee can only be reduced from the value

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

block of assets the value of\nassets received from subsidiary after reducing the depreciation\n“actually allowed” in the hands of the subsidiary. Therefore, as per\nthe clear understanding of Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act\nit is only the amount of depreciation which is actually allowed to\nthe assessee can only be reduced from the value

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

block of fixed assets. Thereby there is no depreciation claimed on the Intellectual Property purchased from Four Soft India and sold to its Parent Company i.e., BluJay Solutions Ltd, UK. The assessee has transferred the Property of INR 62,40,77,295 at book value to its Parent Company i.e., BluJay Solutions Limited, UK and has not claimed any benefit

DR. REDDY`S BIOSCIENCES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

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

block of assets and subject to the requirement of law, it is qualified for claiming depreciation. We, therefore, hold that the disallowance of depreciation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we direct the deletion of the same. 11. Coming to the second addition on account of the cost of acquisition, learned Assessing

PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Assessing Officer of disallowing of depreciation of Rs.7,95,37,619 on assets that were acquired prior to previous year relevant to AY 2015-16 during which the section is not in vogue and is not applicable. 3. The Hon. CIT-A ought to have appreciated that the amendment brought into section 11 of the Act by way of insertion

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED (IN THE CASE OF FLAGSHIP DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Ltd (In The Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Case Of Flagship Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Developers (P) (Ltd) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccv2672G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Tanmayee Rajkumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/01/2025 आदेश/Order

depreciation while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act as the amount of claim is same as reflected in the P&L Account. Further, all these details were available before the learned Pr. CIT as well as before the Assessing Officer. However, without considering the facts and details objectively, the learned Pr. CIT has passed the impugned order

S & P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 463/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

block of assets' shall have the same meaning as in section 43(6)(c) of the Act; that under 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act, restrictions on depreciation in the hands of amalgamating company and amalgamated company in the previous year to the depreciation calculated on 'actual cost' of capital asset in the hands of amalgamating company