YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

depreciation of Rs. 5,47,59,555/- claimed by the assessee was allowed, even though the assessee was having taxable income for the asst. years 2011-12 and 2012-13. (iii) Assessee has sold land during the financial year for a consideration of Rs.3,56,25,000/- on which capital gains of Rs. 2,15,93,863/- was offered. However

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued, and the assessee provided necessary financial documents, including audit reports, annual reports, and transaction details. The company entered into international transactions of ₹172.67 crore and Special Domestic Transactions of ₹30.89 crore. The Transfer Pricing Officer determined no adjustment under section 92CA of the Act. The assessee claimed investment allowance under section

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)

142(1) of the Act was issued without issuing the notice under section 143(2) of the Act and the reasons for reopening the assessment; e) Reference was made by the Ld. AO to Ld. TPO on 29 November 2010 without initiating the assessment proceedings by way of issue of notice under 143(2) of the Act and without supplying

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Please provide complete information with respect to the following queries and also submit all relevant documentary evidences to support and substantiate your contentions. 1. Brief note on your source of income and detail of business activities carried out during the year. Please provide a detailed note on objectives of the entity

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

2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which renders the order passed by the A.O. as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Agilisys IT Services India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT. 15. The Ld. CIT-DR, further referring

FLYTECH AVIATION LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Flytech Aviation Limited, Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Secunderabad. Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Pan : Aaacf3053D. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca Revenue By: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.09.2022

section 115JB of the Act at Rs.55,33,668/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. While, the assessment proceedings were pending, the AO had received certain information from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short “DRI”) Chennai, consequent on search conducted by the DRI, assessee

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:

depreciation is allowable as per the prescribed rates. The Ld. AR submitted that the revenue has not established that either the assessee company has claimed double deduction or that the said claim of deduction is contrary to statutory provisions. Apropos the observation of the Pr. CIT wherein he had directed the AO to examine the amount of Rs. 2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCL GREEN HABITATS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 56(2)(viib) read with 11UA, then the Assessing Officer has no choice but to adopt the method opted for by the assessee. He has further submitted that in the remand report, the Assessing Officer has not submitted that the valuation report submitted by the assessee was defective on the basis of parameters laid down for the valuation

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Country Club Hospitality & Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacc 8276 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2022

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections :- 14 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this

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

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 :

section 263 of Income-of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), 1961 (“the Act”) by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [Hon'ble PCIT] is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2 M/s N.A.M.Expressway Limited 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble PCIT has erred in initiating revisionary proceedings

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an undertaking, any machinery or plant

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

SHAFIUDDIN AHMED QUADRI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Shafiuddin Ahmed Quadri, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 7(1), Pan – Aabpq 1650M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2022

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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