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

127 taxmann.com 69\n(SC).\n9.6\nThe learned PCIT has erred in facts and in law on not appreciating the facts and explanations\nfurnished by the Company with respect to the impugned excess claim of depreciation and\ndeduction under Section

TELANGANA STATE POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17 Telangana State Power Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Generation Corporation Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafct 0257Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 /06/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 2, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 21/08/2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

depreciation. It is referring to this position and provisions of section 32(l)(ii) only, the Courts in Damodar Valley Corporation and NTPC cases decided in the issue in favour of the assessee. 4.8 Now coming to section 32AC, as per Memorandum to Finance Act, 2013, this section was introduced as a measure to promote socio-economic growth. «Incentive

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Depreciation, in respect of the said asset as provided u/s. 35(2)(iv) of the Act as it will lead to double deduction which is not permissible under the law. Ld. DRs reliance on section 35 and 32 of the Act cannot be equated with the deduction allowable under Chapter VIA of the Act. With respect to the facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Depreciation, in respect of the said asset as provided u/s. 35(2)(iv) of the Act as it will lead to double deduction which is not permissible under the law. Ld. DRs reliance on section 35 and 32 of the Act cannot be equated with the deduction allowable under Chapter VIA of the Act. With respect to the facts

ASIAN TOURS AND TRAVELS,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Asian Tours & Travels, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad, Ward-10(1), 9-4-212/94, Opp To Hyderabad. Railway Station, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500003. Pan : Aakfa8752H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “ 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Commissioner in considering the maxim ignoratia juris non excusat, while refusing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

127] :- 7 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (i) Gateway leasing (P) Ltd - 426 ITR 228 (Bom) (ii) Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd- 422 ITR 337 (Born) (iii) Skyview consultants (P) Ltd - 423 ITR 677 (Del) Pages - 83-127 (PB-Vol.1) (iv) Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd - 395 ITR 677 (Del) (v) SFIL Stock Broking

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

127,84,98,794/- on the borrowed funds. As rightly submitted by the learned CIT DR, the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) had examined an identical situation. The question which was referred to the Supreme Court is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest derived

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

127,84,98,794/- on the borrowed funds. As rightly submitted by the learned CIT DR, the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) had examined an identical situation. The question which was referred to the Supreme Court is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest derived

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

127,84,98,794/- on the borrowed funds. As rightly submitted by the learned CIT DR, the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) had examined an identical situation. The question which was referred to the Supreme Court is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest derived

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27,840/-, the Ld. CIT(A) has not deleted the addition and in fact