GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

10. As stated above, on facts in the case of M/s. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd., the Department has disallowed the deduction/debit to the P&L account made by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 29,49,088 being unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation. At the very outset, it may be stated that there is no dispute

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:

10 days from the date of receipt of issue letter. 2. Non-grant of depreciation on goodwill on amalgamation a. The Ld. CIT has grossly erred in law and on facts in denying the Appellant's claim for depreciation on goodwill arising out of the amalgamation of erstwhile companies with the Appellant, merely on the ground that the claim

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEXT EDUCATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

depreciation loss of Rs.13,69,49,466/-. The case was selected for manual scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dt.14-07-2017 was issued and duly served on the assessee-company. Later on, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dt.03-11-2018, 14-11-2018 and 30-11-2018, 08-12-2018 and 15- 12-2018 were issued in e-proceedings

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

37 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. are not permitted to extend the benefit of this beneficial / deduction / exemption provision to the class of assessee which do not specifically fall in the specified category. Therefore, following the same logic and reasoning given hitherto while discussing the scope and ambit of Section

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent of fifty percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under Section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10] The word 'expenditure" is not defined in the Act. The word 'expenditure' is, therefore, required to be understood in the context in which it is used. Section 37 enjoins that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, should

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

10. We next examine the merits of the assessee's claim in light of section 80IA(4) r.w. Explanation ( c ) thereof. This is for the reason that the legislature has reintroduced the Explanation; formerly inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply

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

10. We next examine the merits of the assessee's claim in light of section 80IA(4) r.w. Explanation ( c ) thereof. This is for the reason that the legislature has reintroduced the Explanation; formerly inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply

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

10. We next examine the merits of the assessee's claim in light of section 80IA(4) r.w. Explanation ( c ) thereof. This is for the reason that the legislature has reintroduced the Explanation; formerly inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply

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

10. We next examine the merits of the assessee's claim in light of section 80IA(4) r.w. Explanation ( c ) thereof. This is for the reason that the legislature has reintroduced the Explanation; formerly inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply

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

10. We next examine the merits of the assessee's claim in light of section 80IA(4) r.w. Explanation ( c ) thereof. This is for the reason that the legislature has reintroduced the Explanation; formerly inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply

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

10. We next examine the merits of the assessee's claim in light of section 80IA(4) r.w. Explanation ( c ) thereof. This is for the reason that the legislature has reintroduced the Explanation; formerly inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply

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

10. We next examine the merits of the assessee's claim in light of section 80IA(4) r.w. Explanation ( c ) thereof. This is for the reason that the legislature has reintroduced the Explanation; formerly inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 that "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply

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

depreciation should be claimed on the same. Computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act 6. (a) erred in excluding the gross amount of foreign exchange gain on hedging with forward contracts / marked to market gains of Rs. 106,68,32,843 from the export turnover of ITES for the purpose of computing the deduction under section

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

10,548 Vessels & containers purchased Overseas Rs. 6,19,00,000 Investment in overseas subsidiary Companies Rs. 2,18,74,994 Total Rs.85,23,89,442” 14. It was submitted by the ld.DR that the amount was raised by the assessee for carrying out the activities which are in the nature of capital expenditure and therefore, the amount which sought

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

10,548 Vessels & containers purchased Overseas Rs. 6,19,00,000 Investment in overseas subsidiary Companies Rs. 2,18,74,994 Total Rs.85,23,89,442” 14. It was submitted by the ld.DR that the amount was raised by the assessee for carrying out the activities which are in the nature of capital expenditure and therefore, the amount which sought