ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

depreciation, having changed the method of computation to normal instead of method prescribed under Section 11. The learned Assessing Officer

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022

depreciation disallowed in the previous year. Investment allowance under Section 32AD 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation of penalty under Section 270A

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

depreciation under Section 32(iia) ought to be granted is 35 per cent and not 20 per cent. Investment allowance under Section 32AC 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance

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.

11 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. 6.07 From the above, it can be seen that while bringing the provisions for additional depreciation under section

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 32(1)(ii), the assessee is entitled to claim of depreciation on such type of rights. Such rights have been described as intangible assets under the Act and are eligible for claim of depreciation. Page 11

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 32(1)(ii), the assessee is entitled to claim of depreciation on such type of rights. Such rights have been described as intangible assets under the Act and are eligible for claim of depreciation. Page 11

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 32(1)(ii), the assessee is entitled to claim of depreciation on such type of rights. Such rights have been described as intangible assets under the Act and are eligible for claim of depreciation. Page 11

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3B) on 15.04.2021 in allowing the excessive depreciation on cost incurred for development of toll road as intangible asset is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and thus, opined that, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of 10 BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited the Revenue, and thus

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

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act because, it does not fall under the definition of any other business or commercial rates of similar nature. 7. Shri B. Bala Krishna, learned CIT-DR, submitted that, in the case of M/s Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., for the assessment year 2008-2009, the issue of non-compete fee 11

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

depreciation of INR 3,11,24,473 under section(u/s) 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) , without

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

depreciation in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act as being 11 depreciable intangible asset. This view was plainly opposed