KMC CONTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation on contract work executed by the assessee itself. With this, assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed in part. 9. Now coming to Ground No. 3 and also the additional ground of Revenue’s appeal, it relates to disallowance of claim for deduction of Rs. 8,45,39,638/- under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. It was brough

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation on contract work executed by the assessee itself. With this, assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed in part. 9. Now coming to Ground No. 3 and also the additional ground of Revenue’s appeal, it relates to disallowance of claim for deduction of Rs. 8,45,39,638/- under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. It was brough

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Such other ground/grounds that may be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 12. Grounds 1 & 6 are being general in nature are dismissed. Page 11 of 21 ITA Nos 236 OF 2016 AND 75 OF 2018 AP Power Generation Corporation 13. Ground No.5 was not pressed

A.P. POWER GENERATION CORPN. LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Such other ground/grounds that may be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 12. Grounds 1 & 6 are being general in nature are dismissed. Page 11 of 21 ITA Nos 236 OF 2016 AND 75 OF 2018 AP Power Generation Corporation 13. Ground No.5 was not pressed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation are dismissed. 29.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation are dismissed. 29.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation are dismissed. 29.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation are dismissed. 29.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation are dismissed. 29.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation are dismissed. 29.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation are dismissed. 29.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Depreciation adjustment 14. Without prejudice to argument in Ground 6, the expenses disallowed under 40(a) (i) of the Act should also be excluded from the cost base of the Appellant while computing the operating margin and transfer pricing adjustment.” 2. Also, the assessee company has raised the following additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: “Ground No.15

M/S N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

depreciation or amortization. The assessee has reduced the grant received from Government towards road development from the cost of the asset and the balance amount has been claimed as amortization over the period. This fact has been explained to the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee had also explained the total amount of adjustment under ICDS, which consists of three components

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act by the President of the Tribunal for disposal of any particular case and there is no question of anticipating the decision for or against a party. A Special Bench is constituted by the President of the Tribunal to consider issues of substantial importance on which conflicting opinions may have been expressed