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

13. After computing the business income, while computing the total income of the assessee, the assessee is invoking the benefit under chapter-VIA by claiming deduction of the sums under section 80G of the Act. According to the Revenue, when once such sum went to satisfy the requirement of section 135 of the Companies Act, the benefit gets exhausted

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

depreciation from an eligible unit were\nset off against other income in previous years, they should not be\nreopened or notionally carried forward again to reduce the Section 801A\ndeduction in the chosen initial assessment year. We find that the “SLP”\nfiled by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High\nCourt had been dismissed

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)

2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.06.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Regional e-Assessment Centre under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. During the assessment proceedings, several notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 29.09.2022, 04.01.2023, 19.01.2023, and 28.07.2023, calling for details relating to business

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

depreciable asset as per\nthe proviso to section 43 of the Act, which the AO has\nomitted.\n19.\nWe have heard rival submissions on the\nissue in dispute and perused the material on record.\nWe find that computation of LTCG on the transfer of\nundertaking as the slump sale consists of two\ncomponents. First component is sale consideration\nand

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

depreciable asset as per\nthe proviso to section 43 of the Act, which the AO has\nomitted.\n19.\nWe have heard rival submissions on the\nissue in dispute and perused the material on record.\nWe find that computation of LTCG on the transfer of\nundertaking as the slump sale consists of two\ncomponents. First component is sale consideration\nand

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

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

depreciable asset as per\nthe proviso to section 43 of the Act, which the AO has\nomitted.\n19.\nWe have heard rival submissions on the\nissue in dispute and perused the material on record.\nWe find that computation of LTCG on the transfer of\nundertaking as the slump sale consists of two\ncomponents. First component is sale consideration\nand

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

13) wherein the Apex Court\nhas held that the scope of section 80-IA(5) is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under\nsub-section Section 80-IA(1) by treating 'eligible business' as the 'only source of income'. However,\nSection 80-IA(5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under Section

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

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:

2) of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), where such depreciation was not deductible in determining the written down value for the pur-poses of the said clause (vi);] [(c) in the case of any block of assets,— (i) in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. ITA.No.490/Hyd./2022 – A.Y. 2017-2018 : 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “General : 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 July 2022 (received on 30 July 2022) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. ITA.No.490/Hyd./2022 – A.Y. 2017-2018 : 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “General : 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 July 2022 (received on 30 July 2022) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

Section 32 ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 37 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) of the IT Act and in the prescribed tables of depreciation ( schedules of the IT rules), the investments in securities by the assesse are not covered. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in the light of submissions made

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

Section 32 ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 37 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) of the IT Act and in the prescribed tables of depreciation ( schedules of the IT rules), the investments in securities by the assesse are not covered. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in the light of submissions made

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

Section 32 ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 37 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) of the IT Act and in the prescribed tables of depreciation ( schedules of the IT rules), the investments in securities by the assesse are not covered. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in the light of submissions made

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

Section 32 ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 37 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) of the IT Act and in the prescribed tables of depreciation ( schedules of the IT rules), the investments in securities by the assesse are not covered. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in the light of submissions made

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

Section 32 ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 37 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) of the IT Act and in the prescribed tables of depreciation ( schedules of the IT rules), the investments in securities by the assesse are not covered. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in the light of submissions made

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

Section 32 ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 37 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) of the IT Act and in the prescribed tables of depreciation ( schedules of the IT rules), the investments in securities by the assesse are not covered. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in the light of submissions made

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

Section 32 ITA Nos.1796/Hyd/2017, 241/Hyd/2018 Page 37 & 460 to 464/Hyd/2023 (S.A. Nos.63 to 67/Hyd/2023) of the IT Act and in the prescribed tables of depreciation ( schedules of the IT rules), the investments in securities by the assesse are not covered. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in the light of submissions made

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

13[this section] shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, 14[***] the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 28815[before the specified date referred to in section 44AB], certifying that the deduction