MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250 with reference to section 143(3

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250 with reference to section 143(3

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250 with reference to section 143(3

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)

143(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

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

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/12/2018, wherein, after\nexhaustive deliberations, its returned income was accepted as such,\nPage Nos.116 to 121 of APB. Elaborating further on his contention, the\nLd. AR submitted that the AO in the course of the original assessment\nproceedings had, inter alia, looked into the assessee company's claim\nfor depreciation/additional depreciation

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)

143(3) of the Act and were accepted to be at arm's length price; and (b) failed in not appreciating the fact that reference to the Ld. TPO by the Ld. AO under section 92CA(1) of the Act during re-assessment proceedings is mere change of opinion and is bad in law which is liable to be quashed

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

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

3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years 16[ending before the 1st day of April, 2001]; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH or section 80HHA or section

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), pursuant to the directions dated 29 June 2022 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP") u/s 144C(5) of the Act and read with order dated 11 July 2022 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), pursuant to the directions dated 29 June 2022 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP") u/s 144C(5) of the Act and read with order dated 11 July 2022 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act, in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant

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:

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO vide his notice u/s 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

PONAPULA SULOCHANA LR LATE P SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act on 27.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs. 47,80,270/- by accepting the income returned by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, although the assessee has returned

PONNAPULA SULOCHANA, L/R OF LATE PONNAPULA SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act on 27.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs. 47,80,270/- by accepting the income returned by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, although the assessee has returned

SHRI GAYATRI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act on 27.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs. 47,80,270/- by accepting the income returned by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, although the assessee has returned

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:

143(3) of the Act on 20.12.2017 making an addition of Rs.1,17,93,630/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act, while allowing the claim of the assessee on account of depreciation

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

143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/09/2021 at Rs. 256,91,48,125/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee company filed additional evidence, which was forwarded by the CIT(A) to the AO for verification. In reply, the AO filed a “remand

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

143(3) on 27.03.2010 determining the total loss at Rs.3,19,03,542/- as against the returned loss of Rs.3,56,28,560/- by disallowing depreciation of Rs.37,25,018/-. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 on 27.03.2014 after recording the reasons for reopening and such reasons have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission