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

business, income from capital gains and income from other sources. 3.1. With regard to the rental income, it was explained that the rent received from the properties was shown under the head ‘income from house property’ and that assessee has disallowed the relevant expenses like depreciation

MEENAKSHI ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.291/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Meenakshi Energy & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Infrastructure Holdings (P) Circle 5 (1) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm6917L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate Shri A.V. Raghuram रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(Cit)Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/Order

business and profession. Further, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) to assess interest Page 10 of 13 ITA No 291 of 2024 Meenakshi Energy and Infrastructure Holdings P Ltd income under the head income from other sources that in preceding A.Ys, the assessee itself has assessed interest income under the head income from other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

depreciation on the value of assets. Therefore in the given facts of the case, we hold that Assessee has only setup the business but has not commenced the business, therefore, the claim of revenue expenditure is not allowable as the provisions of Sec. 28 of the IT Act does not apply. 32. Since the principles laid down

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

business income and can be claimed against gross total income.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 263", "Section 43(6)", "Section 80-IA", "Section 80A(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the Ld. PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 by setting aside the assessment order without proper adjudication, and whether the assessee had made excess claims for depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on the value of assets. Therefore in the given facts of the case, we hold that Assessee has only setup the business but has not commenced the business, therefore, the claim of revenue expenditure is not allowable as the provisions of Sec. 28 of the IT Act does not apply. 32. Since the principles laid down

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on the value of assets. Therefore in the given facts of the case, we hold that Assessee has only setup the business but has not commenced the business, therefore, the claim of revenue expenditure is not allowable as the provisions of Sec. 28 of the IT Act does not apply. 32. Since the principles laid down

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.244/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ) Acit Vs. Southern Power Circle 1(1) Distribution Company Of Tirupati Andhra Pradesh, Tirupati Pan:Aahcs4056Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Mohan Acharya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/07/2024 आदेश/Order

depreciation on capital receipts and debited to P&L Account in respect of assets acquired out of contribution received from consumers and subsidies received from govt. The appellant had also withdrawn an equal amount from the capital reserve and credited to P&L Account. But, in the statement of total income, while computing income from business

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciation on assets acquired during the previous year for calculation of income purposes or as application of the cost of the acquired asset and not both. It may not mean otherwise specifically so because the calculation of income and application and carry forward and set off principles are quite different from business

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

income from other sources (45,90,494-24,81,41,545.67) Add depreciation as per (+) 31,71,547.00 Accounts Less depreciation as per IT (-) 21,79,457.00 Rules :- 15 -: C.O.No.28/Hyd/2019 (A) Loss from business

MARUTI INFRAVENTURES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-16(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 160/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maruti Infrainventures Vs. Income Tax Officer (India) Private Ltd Ward 16(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm6624A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ch Rajeswara Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

depreciation allowances separately. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly estimated 8% profit from income from operations, because the method followed by the assessee for determining the income from business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

income chargeable to tax' under section 41(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.45,93,627; Additional Ground 4.2. Without prejudice to the above, erred in law and on facts in setting-aside the matter and remanding back the same to the Ld. AO to review the taxability of unclaimed ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page 4 liabilities, which is not permitted

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)

depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/-. He further observed that the total income of the assessee was Rs.15,96,77,696/-, comprising of business

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

income from business should not have included investment depreciation of Rs. 7,05,18,382/- and profit on sale of investments

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

income from business should not have included investment depreciation of Rs. 7,05,18,382/- and profit on sale of investments

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

income from business should not have included investment depreciation of Rs. 7,05,18,382/- and profit on sale of investments

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

income from business should not have included investment depreciation of Rs. 7,05,18,382/- and profit on sale of investments

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

income from business should not have included investment depreciation of Rs. 7,05,18,382/- and profit on sale of investments

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

income from business should not have included investment depreciation of Rs. 7,05,18,382/- and profit on sale of investments