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, 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, 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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. VINSRI INFOTECH, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

assessment year 2003-04 within the block period. Looking into the peculiar facts of the case and net profitability ratio of software companies at 11.47% in 2001 as reported by GIAN JYOTHI JOURNAL, and further reduction in net profitability of the Software Companies in subsequent period, I consider the net profit of the appellant company for the block period

M/S VINSRI INFOTECH,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

assessment year 2003-04 within the block period. Looking into the peculiar facts of the case and net profitability ratio of software companies at 11.47% in 2001 as reported by GIAN JYOTHI JOURNAL, and further reduction in net profitability of the Software Companies in subsequent period, I consider the net profit of the appellant company for the block period

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Progressive Constructions Vs. Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad Pan – Aabcp 2274 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessment year, the claim is limited to depreciation on the M/s Progressive Constructions Ltd. WDV on block of assets only

OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

depreciation on ponds which is forming part of the block of assets has to be allowed as deduction even though these ponds were discarded and not used and not owned by it during the assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS INDIA LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

depreciation on ponds which is forming part of the block of assets has to be allowed as deduction even though these ponds were discarded and not used and not owned by it during the assessment

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

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

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

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHAKTI MET DOR LTD), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2006-07

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,38,711/-:- 10. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings it was observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee had not deleted the amount of Rs. 17,38,711/- from the written down value of the block

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