GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

145 : Method of Accounting.—(1) Income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' or 'Income from other sources' shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. (2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time

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

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

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

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

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

145, has clearly held that, the right to collect toll revenue as per the concession agreement does not give rise to any intangible asset or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature as defined under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and thus the assessee cannot claim depreciation. The Ld. CIT-DR, further referring to the decision

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

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

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

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

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

TOUCH TONE TELESERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 987/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Touch Tone Teleservices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 3-6-550/4, 1St Floor, Ward-4(1), Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aacft5196N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts and the submissions of the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in estimating the appellant

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

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

145 of the Act. 3.6. Erred in considering SBI interest rates as PLI for charging interest on outstanding receivables without appreciating the fact that the assessee is into the business of banking. 4. Erred in treating 'Reimbursement of expenditure' as 'Outstanding Receivables' and making ALP adjustment. 4.1. DRP erred in considering the reimbursement of expenses as outstanding receivables and proposing