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

depreciation on goodwill not be treated as wrong claim that should be disallowed; , and (iii) how extending liabilities were shown in the financials or books of account. The assessee filed its detailed reply. However, ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he held that deal value of the shares was INR 5,978 crores while the corresponding investment recorded

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

depreciation on goodwill not be treated as wrong claim that should be disallowed; , and (iii) how extending liabilities were shown in the financials or books of account. The assessee filed its detailed reply. However, ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he held that deal value of the shares was INR 5,978 crores while the corresponding investment recorded

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

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii- a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

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

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii- a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

Depreciation Spandana Spoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd. on website 1,152 Disallowance u/s 14A 6,77,46,792 Loss assessed 27,23,29,304 ========== 4. By virtue of powers vested under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

Depreciation Spandana Spoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd. on website 1,152 Disallowance u/s 14A 6,77,46,792 Loss assessed 27,23,29,304 ========== 4. By virtue of powers vested under section

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

152) made by the Ld. AO towards inflated expenditure on Granite processing and dressing charges U/s. 37(1) of the Act. (iv) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 11,41,000 towards payment made to Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as unaccounted expenditure

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

depreciation allowance" in s. 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in cls. (a) and (b), viz., "escaped assessment". The term "escaped assessment" includes both "non-assessment" as well as "underassessment". Income is said to have "escaped assessment" within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged