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

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022

depreciation disallowed in the previous year. Investment allowance under Section 32AD 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation of penalty under Section 270A

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

depreciation disallowed in the previous year. 7 ITA.Nos.125 & 474/Hyd./2022 Investment allowance under Section 32AD 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation

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

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a ) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a ) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ABIR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafc3608N (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned(hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

SANJEEV KUMAR NALAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.669/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Nalam Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward – 1 Pan:Avdpn0497L Adilabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153

THE PRUDENTIAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

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

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

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

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

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

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153

THULASI CHAMARTHY,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153