TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

section g2() of the Act, for the Impugned AY on the Opening WDV of the said block of assets, is consequential and mandatory under the provisions of the Act. 7. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following binding judicial precedents wherein it was held that, once an asset has entered into block of assets' and depreciation thereon

ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

112,73,62,010/-. After considering the relevant details/submissions filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment assessing business loss of Rs.79,72,99,200/- and brought forward losses as “NIL”. 4. In this regard, the learned DR drew our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal for the previous year whereby the Tribunal held as under

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

112,73,62,010/-. After considering the relevant details/submissions filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment assessing business loss of Rs.79,72,99,200/- and brought forward losses as “NIL”. 4. In this regard, the learned DR drew our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal for the previous year whereby the Tribunal held as under

DCIT CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SURYADEVARA VENKATESWARA RAO, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 54GB of the Act. Page 3 of 6 7. When the Revenue preferred appeal against such a finding of the learned CIT(A), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal upheld the findings of the learned CIT(A), with the following observations: “8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

section 2(14) of Income Tax Act, 1961" as income from Capital Gain u/s 112. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred by upholding the addition made by learned assessing officer as the Interest Income of Rs. 2,77,140 as unexplained income though the same was reflected in form 26AS

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 10B of the Act. 106. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. The CBDT Circular No. 729 dated 1/11/1995 has made it clear that dressing of the granite, cutting them into smaller pieces, polishing the granite amounts to manufacturing or production as envisaged under the Act. Further, as observed

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

112 and observations made in paragraph Nos. 110 and 111, shall also be taken into consideration. Cases, which fall less than the value of Rs.50,00,000/- would have to be dropped keeping in view the stand taken by the revenue before the Apex Court, as observed in paragraph No.53. 8. The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted by the concerned