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

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

115 WB(2)(E) and explanation thereto introduced by virtue of Finance Act of 2008 such expenditure made was not to be considered as expenditure for employees welfare. He, therefore, submits that since the present proceedings pertain to the assessment year 2006-07, the explanation cannot be given retrospective effect". 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

115 WB(2)(E) and explanation thereto introduced by virtue of Finance Act of 2008 such expenditure made was not to be considered as expenditure for employees welfare. He, therefore, submits that since the present proceedings pertain to the assessment year 2006-07, the explanation cannot be given retrospective effect". 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

115 WB(2)(E) and explanation thereto introduced by virtue of Finance Act of 2008 such expenditure made was not to be considered as expenditure for employees welfare. He, therefore, submits that since the present proceedings pertain to the assessment year 2006-07, the explanation cannot be given retrospective effect". 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

115 VN clarifies that the provisions of section 50 shell apply for the "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" . (C) Therefore, the capital gains if any u/s.50, in respect of the block of assets relating to Tonnage assets will have to be computed separately from the block of assets relating to non-tonnage assets. D) In respect

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

115 VN clarifies that the provisions of section 50 shell apply for the "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" . (C) Therefore, the capital gains if any u/s.50, in respect of the block of assets relating to Tonnage assets will have to be computed separately from the block of assets relating to non-tonnage assets. D) In respect

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

115 VN clarifies that the provisions of section 50 shell apply for the "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" . (C) Therefore, the capital gains if any u/s.50, in respect of the block of assets relating to Tonnage assets will have to be computed separately from the block of assets relating to non-tonnage assets. D) In respect

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation on Rs.183 crores. 3.7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the intangible", assets quantified at Rs.1,464 crore was not supported by any documentary proof. 4. Enhancement by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act: 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation on Rs.183 crores. 3.7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the intangible", assets quantified at Rs.1,464 crore was not supported by any documentary proof. 4. Enhancement by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act: 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

MYLAN LABORATOREIS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 115 JB of the Act. Since the assessee entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs), reference was made to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and pursuant to his order dated 30/10/2018, a draft assessment order was passed on 31/12/2018 making several adjustments/additions including the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation

KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

section 80-IA of the Act. This finding holds good as on the date. 15. In view of the identical facts involved for all these years, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned CIT(A) following the binding precedent in the well considered view of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal taken

KMC CONSTRUCTIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

section 80-IA of the Act. This finding holds good as on the date. 15. In view of the identical facts involved for all these years, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned CIT(A) following the binding precedent in the well considered view of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal taken

SHAIK SHAKEER AHAMED. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

section 80-IA of the Act. This finding holds good as on the date. 15. In view of the identical facts involved for all these years, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned CIT(A) following the binding precedent in the well considered view of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal taken

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

section 80-IA of the Act. This finding holds good as on the date. 15. In view of the identical facts involved for all these years, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned CIT(A) following the binding precedent in the well considered view of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal taken

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

section 80-IA of the Act. This finding holds good as on the date. 15. In view of the identical facts involved for all these years, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned CIT(A) following the binding precedent in the well considered view of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal taken

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

section 80-IA of the Act. This finding holds good as on the date. 15. In view of the identical facts involved for all these years, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned CIT(A) following the binding precedent in the well considered view of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal taken

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

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

section 80-IA of the Act. This finding holds good as on the date. 15. In view of the identical facts involved for all these years, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned CIT(A) following the binding precedent in the well considered view of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal taken

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 All Cargo Gati Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Gati Limited), Mumbai. Pan : Aabcg3709Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2024 01.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 115 VG of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are complete, and once the assessee opts for the Tonnage Tax Scheme, the assessee cannot take the shield of taking the deduction of any other expenditure. Hence, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not entitled to deduction as claimed by the assessee towards interest paid being

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

115]B of the Act is a self-contained code and the AO has no jurisdiction to alter the book profit except to the extent provided in the explanation to section 115JB of the Act; Disallowances of expenditures: ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page 3 2. erred in upholding the AO's action of disallowing the expenses claimed under section

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years