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

142 1[or section 148] or section 153A [***] relating to the assessment year commencing [on the 1st day of April, 1a[2023]] shall,— [(a) in the case of a person being 2[an individual who is a resident other than not ordinarily resident and] where the total income includes income chargeable to income-tax, under the head,— (i) "Salaries

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

Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 12.01.2021 and also explained the reasons for claiming depreciation on cost of road

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. 10. In the case of the assessee, it had filed a revised return on 30.3.2010 which is before expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. 10. In the case of the assessee, it had filed a revised return on 30.3.2010 which is before expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year

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

142(1) and duly served on the assessee company. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed the information called for and on perusal of the same and particularly the schedule of fixed assets, the AO observed that the assessee company claimed depreciation of Rs.18,16,15,643/- on BOT projects @ 5% (at half the rate as being

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

142(1) and duly served on the assessee company. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed the information called for and on perusal of the same and particularly the schedule of fixed assets, the AO observed that the assessee company claimed depreciation of Rs.18,16,15,643/- on BOT projects @ 5% (at half the rate as being

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

142(1) and duly served on the assessee company. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed the information called for and on perusal of the same and particularly the schedule of fixed assets, the AO observed that the assessee company claimed depreciation of Rs.18,16,15,643/- on BOT projects @ 5% (at half the rate as being

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

142(1) were issued and responded to by the assessee. 3.1. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that during the relevant Previous Year (PY), the assessee company had certain international transactions pertaining to purchases of from/with the associate enterprises. A reference was therefore made to TPO for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The TPO, vide his order u/s 92CA

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

142(1) were issued and responded to by the assessee. 3.1. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that during the relevant Previous Year (PY), the assessee company had certain international transactions pertaining to purchases of from/with the associate enterprises. A reference was therefore made to TPO for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The TPO, vide his order u/s 92CA

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

142(1) were issued accordingly. The AO completed the assessment by making disallowance of Rs. 13,02,71,498/- towards deduction claimed u/s 32AD of the Act. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company had claimed investment allowance u/s 32AD of Rs. 13,02,71,498/- and sought justification for the same with

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

section 31(1)(ii) and 6th proviso, provided therein and after considering the relevant facts held as under : 25 East India Petroleum Limited 26 East India Petroleum Limited 18. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Teksystems Global Services (P) Ltd.(supra), where, the Tribunal has considered an identical issue

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)

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 activities, ITR, financials, depreciation

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

142(1) of the Act, dated 20/02/2022, had specifically directed the assessee company to furnish complete details of the debts that were written off during the year under consideration, i.e., details of the debts alongwith names, PAN, amount of interest paid, and copies of the corresponding ledger account. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed with

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

142(1) of the Act, dated 10/09/2018, wherein at Sl.No.8 of the query letter, he had called upon the assessee company to justify its claim for depreciation at higher rates/additional depreciation for the year under consideration, Page 107-108 of APB. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO vide his notice under section

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

142(1) were issued and sought for furnishing the details of utilization of FCCB proceeds received at Rs.85,23,89,442/- and other details. The assessee’s representatives appeared to furnish the required details. After verifying the information submitted and submissions made, Assessing Officer observed that assessee had invested major amounts in purchase of lands in place of warehouses

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

142(1) were issued and sought for furnishing the details of utilization of FCCB proceeds received at Rs.85,23,89,442/- and other details. The assessee’s representatives appeared to furnish the required details. After verifying the information submitted and submissions made, Assessing Officer observed that assessee had invested major amounts in purchase of lands in place of warehouses

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

depreciation on the same. 7.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred disallowing the foreign remittance made towards R&D Services availed from Dr. Reddy's Research & Development B.V. (formerly known as Octoplus B.V.) and Support services avalled from Dr Reddy's Laboratories Inc USA under section

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

depreciation on the same. 7.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred disallowing the foreign remittance made towards R&D Services availed from Dr. Reddy's Research & Development B.V. (formerly known as Octoplus B.V.) and Support services avalled from Dr Reddy's Laboratories Inc USA under section

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

142, is furnished after the due date, or is not furnished, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the date immediately following the due date, and,— (a) where the return is furnished after the due date, ending