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.

depreciation under section 32(i)(ii) into existence, the power generating companies were not considered initially. It is only by an amendment to section 32(i)(ii), the power generating units were included to get the benefit of additional deprecation. It is referring to this position and provisions of section 32(1)(ii) only, theCourts in Damodar Valley Corporation

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 disallowed in the previous year. 7 ITA.Nos.125 & 474/Hyd./2022 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

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

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Section 32(1)(ii)......." 12. It is, therefore, apparent that the ruling in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (supra) was concerned with an extremely limited controversy, i.e. depreciability

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

depreciation on capital cost incurred for construction of toll road. The right received by the assessee is emerging as a result of the cost incurred by the company on development, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility, and such a right is in the nature of intangible asset falling within the purview of 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

12. In the result, we affirm the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the assessee was eligible for depreciation on the „Right to collect Toll', being an „intangible asset' falling within the purview of section

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

12. In the result, we affirm the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the assessee was eligible for depreciation on the „Right to collect Toll', being an „intangible asset' falling within the purview of section

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

12. In the result, we affirm the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the assessee was eligible for depreciation on the „Right to collect Toll', being an „intangible asset' falling within the purview of section

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

12 ITA No.1119/Hyd./2018 A.Y.: 2013-14 Sh. Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy unabsorbed business loss or unabsorbed depreciation of the erstwhile firm is to be allowed to be carried forward in his individual assessment for the A.Y. 2013-14 in terms of the provisions of Sec.170 of the Act. It was also submitted that this claim

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

depreciation, ICDS compliance, TDS payments, assets, borrowings, and other supporting documents. The assessee submitted partial and complete responses on various dates and also participated in video- conference proceedings on 12.09.2023, furnishing explanations on ICDS and related issues. Since the assessee had reported large 6 Gainsight Software Private Limited value international transactions in respect of provision of software development services

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

12. In this factual background, if we examine the legal contentions raised by the Ld.CIT-DR in light of provisions of section 32(1)(ii) and 6th Proviso, provided therein, we need to examine, whether 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act restrict depreciation

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

section 32 shall be deemed to be depreciation 'actually allowed'." 10. From the reading of Explanation 2A extracted above, it is patently clear that the written down value of the transferred capital asset to the amalgamated company would be the same as it would have been if the amalgamating company continue to hold the capital asset for the purpose

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 92CA of the Act. The learned DRP, in it’s Directions dated 10.01.2022 has upheld the TP adjustment made by the TPO for benchmarking of interest paid on CCDs. 8. CA Shri Sriram Seshadri, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, this issue is squarely covered in 12 ITA.No.111/Hyd./2022 favour of the assessee by the decision

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

Section 32(1)(ii)......." 12. It is, therefore, apparent that the ruling in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (supra) was concerned with an extremely limited controversy, i.e. depreciability

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 for each of the relevant assessment year. Similarly, Section 10AA(8) provides as under : 10AA(8) The provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 10A shall apply to the articles or things or services referred to in sub-section (1) as if— (a) for the figures, letters and word "1st April, 2001", the figures, letters and word

S & P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 463/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

12 ITA-TP No. 463/Hyd/2022 of amalgamating company; that under Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6)(c) of the Act written down value of capital assets in the hands of amalgamated company to be same as in the hands of amalgamating company; that under Explanation 2 to Section 32(1) of the Act, depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVAT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

12. Further, by claiming depreciation @ 25%, the appellant would be able to write off nearly 80% of its investment of Rs.712.02 Cr in first four years whereas the revenue streams continue to flow for the next 35 years as per the agreement. This is directly against the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

12. Further, by claiming depreciation @ 25%, the appellant would be able to write off nearly 80% of its investment of Rs.712.02 Cr in first four years whereas the revenue streams continue to flow for the next 35 years as per the agreement. This is directly against the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

12. Further, by claiming depreciation @ 25%, the appellant would be able to write off nearly 80% of its investment of Rs.712.02 Cr in first four years whereas the revenue streams continue to flow for the next 35 years as per the agreement. This is directly against the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation