DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

M/S COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Holidays Ltd (Formerly Tax, Circle 3 (2) Known As Country Club Hyderabad India Ltd) Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc8276B (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section 32. Therefore, the Parliament has used the expression 'any expenditure in section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression 'expenditure' as used in section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss', even though said amount has not gone out from the pocket

NCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD vs. SHYAM BABA FERRO ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MAHBOOB NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Baba Ferro Alloys Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaocs 3654H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs Shyam Baba Ferro Alloys Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aaocs 3654H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri M. Srinivas Date Of Hearing: 20/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) - 3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 12/10/2017 For Ay 2014-15

section 145 of the IT Act. Further, the assessing officer estimated the income from business at 2% on Rs.19,44,34,695/- representing revenue from operations. The assessing officer also treated the amount of Rs.4,23,51,491/- as income from speculation business rejecting the claim of the assessee that the same represent “income from other sources”. Thus, the assessing

SHYAM BABA FERRO ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Baba Ferro Alloys Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaocs 3654H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs Shyam Baba Ferro Alloys Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aaocs 3654H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri M. Srinivas Date Of Hearing: 20/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) - 3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 12/10/2017 For Ay 2014-15

section 145 of the IT Act. Further, the assessing officer estimated the income from business at 2% on Rs.19,44,34,695/- representing revenue from operations. The assessing officer also treated the amount of Rs.4,23,51,491/- as income from speculation business rejecting the claim of the assessee that the same represent “income from other sources”. Thus, the assessing

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

depreciation claimed on the cost of development of toll road in light of the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and, after 22 BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited referring to various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Limited Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 145

SRINATH REDDY NALLA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Srinath Reddy Nalla, Vs. Income Tax Officer, R/O.Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Pan : Aagpn8178E. Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) – 6, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. Ita 1233/Hyd/2019

section 145(3) of the Act. Page 3 of 12 ITA 1233/Hyd/2019 6. Per contra, the ld. DR had drawn our attention to the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and also the order passed by the Assessing Officer. It was the case of the Revenue that despite various opportunities, the assessee failed to produce the sale bills and vouchers

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

section 2(11) of the Act. Since the above assets are depreciable and fall under Block I of assets in the depreciation 8 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. schedule of income as followed by assessee, which is reproduced below: Block – I Ships: tonnage Written down value as on 01/04/2007 641,981,602 Less: Sales during

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

section 2(11) of the Act. Since the above assets are depreciable and fall under Block I of assets in the depreciation 8 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. schedule of income as followed by assessee, which is reproduced below: Block – I Ships: tonnage Written down value as on 01/04/2007 641,981,602 Less: Sales during

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

section 2(11) of the Act. Since the above assets are depreciable and fall under Block I of assets in the depreciation 8 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. schedule of income as followed by assessee, which is reproduced below: Block – I Ships: tonnage Written down value as on 01/04/2007 641,981,602 Less: Sales during

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) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to section

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) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to section

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) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to section

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation on investments by considering earlier years opening stock and closing balances. ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 4 5.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the investments of the appellant bank are stock in trade and the appellant bank is eligible to claim the loss arising out of the valuation of the stock at cost

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

depreciation on\ninvestments by considering earlier years opening stock and closing balances.\n5.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact\nthat the investments of the appellant bank are stock in trade and the appellant bank\nis eligible to claim the loss arising out of the valuation of the stock at cost or market\nvalue whichever

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

depreciation on the same, Page 145-147 of APB. Also, it was submitted by the Ld. CIT-DR that as the AO vide his notice issued under section

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation after completion and on commencement of its use for business. But since that stage is not reached-no asset having come into existence-the capital-work-in-progress had to be written off as such." 10 I.T.A. No. 802/H/14 and others Singarerni Colleries Companly Ltd., Kothagudem 9. There was no challenge to such finding on facts before the learned