RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

131 of the Act, dated 01.12.2018, the assessee, in reply to question no.17 stated that, he has received an amount of Rs.45 lakhs by way of cash from one Sri Murali Goud for settlement of litigation in land admeasuring 45 acres owned by Sri Murali Goud at Kuntloor Village, Hayat Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bearing Survey Nos. 278/2, 278/3

PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 Taxman 386 (Bombay), the income of the Trust is required to be computed under section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 131 of the Act she accepted that her affidavit in that respect was incorrect. By looking at the social background of her, the learned Assessing Officer dis-believed that she was doing any embroidery activity. She also does not have any bank account and she has not filed any return of income for the assessment year Page

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 131 of the Act she accepted that her affidavit in that respect was incorrect. By looking at the social background of her, the learned Assessing Officer dis-believed that she was doing any embroidery activity. She also does not have any bank account and she has not filed any return of income for the assessment year Page

NATUROL BIOCHEMICALS AND FOODS LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS KALEESUWARI REFINERY AND INDUSTRY PVT LTD ),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Natural Biochemicals & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Foods Ltd. (Now Known As Income-Tax, Kaleesuwari Refinery & Circle – 16(1), Industry Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcn 7337H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Psrvv Surya Rao Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 27/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021

depreciation on plant and machinery on the footing that they were kept ready for use in the business once it got revived and that amounted to passive use of the assets, which would meet the requirements of Section 32. These judgments are : (1) Capital Bus Service (supra) (2) CIT Vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS INDIA LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

131/- was claimed. The assessment for AY 2013-14 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the said assessment order was placed in the paper book at pages 59 to 62. As per the assessment order, the AO did not make any addition relating to the claim of depreciation. The AR also invited our attention to page No.112

OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

131/- was claimed. The assessment for AY 2013-14 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the said assessment order was placed in the paper book at pages 59 to 62. As per the assessment order, the AO did not make any addition relating to the claim of depreciation. The AR also invited our attention to page No.112

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURES LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

131 of the Act and mentioned as under :- “It is further seen vide para 4.10 of the assessment order that the Executive Director of the assessee company in a response u/s.131 Page 28 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd stated that while executing the project at Indore the claim for expenditure