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

11. It is, therefore, clear that the question that is relevant to be answered on this issue is whether the donations given for compliance with the provisions under section 135 of the Companies Act, to the institutions mentioned in section 80G(2) of the Act are qualified for deduction under section 80G of the Act also. 12. Explanation

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

2 in favour of the assessee.\n18. We have given thoughtful consideration to the reasoning adopted\nby the CIT(Appeals), which, in our view, is in consonance with the\nstatutory scheme of section 80G of the Act. We concur with the Ld. AR\nthat the legislature, in all its wisdom, while consciously excluding certain\nCSR-related donations from the ambit

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

section 56(2)(viib), being\na venture capital undertaking, in respect of consideration\nreceived for issue of CCPS from a Venture capital\ncompany/fund, as per the first proviso thereunder.\n8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT(Appeals) erred in not holding that the provisions of\nsection 56(2)(viib) are applicable

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

section 56(2)(viib), being\na venture capital undertaking, in respect of consideration\nreceived for issue of CCPS from a Venture capital\ncompany/fund, as per the first proviso thereunder.\n8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT(Appeals) erred in not holding that the provisions of\nsection 56(2)(viib) are applicable

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

section 56(2)(viib), being\na venture capital undertaking, in respect of consideration\nreceived for issue of CCPS from a Venture capital\ncompany/fund, as per the first proviso thereunder.\n8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT(Appeals) erred in not holding that the provisions of\nsection 56(2)(viib) are applicable

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 11(6) of the Act restricting allowance of depreciation will be applicable to assets acquired during previous relevant to said AY 2015¬16 or in any subsequent AY.” 2

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

depreciation “actually allowed” in the\nhands of the subsidiary. Therefore, as per the clear understanding\nof Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, it is only the amount of\ndepreciation which is actually allowed to the subsidiary can only be\nreduced from the value of the assets. In this regard, we have also\ngone through the decision

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:

11 of 1922), or any Act repealed by that Act, or under any executive orders issued when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886 (2 of 1886), was in force: [Provided that in determining the written down value in respect of buildings, machinery or plant for the purposes of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32, "depreciation

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

2,18,60,60,000 1,95,10,20,704 23,84,75,500 Total 11,99,89,16,000 12,06,89,56,953 12,08,85,56,040 37,11,75,325 PROVISION REQUIRED FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 (AS ON 31.03.2009) 37,11,75,325 PROVISION ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RESERVE UPTO

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.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

2,18,60,60,000 1,95,10,20,704 23,84,75,500 Total 11,99,89,16,000 12,06,89,56,953 12,08,85,56,040 37,11,75,325 PROVISION REQUIRED FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 (AS ON 31.03.2009) 37,11,75,325 PROVISION ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RESERVE UPTO

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

2,18,60,60,000 1,95,10,20,704 23,84,75,500 Total 11,99,89,16,000 12,06,89,56,953 12,08,85,56,040 37,11,75,325 PROVISION REQUIRED FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 (AS ON 31.03.2009) 37,11,75,325 PROVISION ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RESERVE UPTO

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

2,18,60,60,000 1,95,10,20,704 23,84,75,500 Total 11,99,89,16,000 12,06,89,56,953 12,08,85,56,040 37,11,75,325 PROVISION REQUIRED FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 (AS ON 31.03.2009) 37,11,75,325 PROVISION ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RESERVE UPTO

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

2,18,60,60,000 1,95,10,20,704 23,84,75,500 Total 11,99,89,16,000 12,06,89,56,953 12,08,85,56,040 37,11,75,325 PROVISION REQUIRED FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 (AS ON 31.03.2009) 37,11,75,325 PROVISION ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RESERVE UPTO

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

2,18,60,60,000 1,95,10,20,704 23,84,75,500 Total 11,99,89,16,000 12,06,89,56,953 12,08,85,56,040 37,11,75,325 PROVISION REQUIRED FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 (AS ON 31.03.2009) 37,11,75,325 PROVISION ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RESERVE UPTO

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

2,18,60,60,000 1,95,10,20,704 23,84,75,500 Total 11,99,89,16,000 12,06,89,56,953 12,08,85,56,040 37,11,75,325 PROVISION REQUIRED FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 (AS ON 31.03.2009) 37,11,75,325 PROVISION ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RESERVE UPTO

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

11(5) in earlier year. The learned Assessing Officer erred in concluding that the assessee was not pursuing the main object of education u/ s 2(15). The learned Assessing Officer ought to have considered that the assessee does not fall under last limb of Section 2(15), viz., any other object of general public utility, since all the education

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2)(iii). 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in remanding the issue to the learned Assessing Officer to re-work the depreciation on investments by considering earlier years opening stock and closing balances. ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 4 5.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

depreciation under Section 32(ia), without revising the\nopening WDV of plant and machinery on account of the amount of\ndepreciation disallowed in the previous year.\nInvestment allowance under Section 32AD\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO,\nunder the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating\nthat