DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURES LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

depreciation under section 32, is linked to investment. It is also made clear that section 80-IA not only contains substantive but 7 I.T.A. No. 607/Hyd/16 and others Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected". Therefore, it is humbly

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)

depreciation and business losses are governed by Section 72 r.w.s. 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per Section 80 of the Act, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(3) shall be carry forward and set off under Section

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)

depreciation and business losses are governed by Section 72 r.w.s. 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per Section 80 of the Act, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(3) shall be carry forward and set off under Section

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)

depreciation and business losses are governed by Section 72 r.w.s. 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per Section 80 of the Act, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(3) shall be carry forward and set off under Section

YELLAIAH SETTY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Yellaiah Setty, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 5, Pan – Agqps 2236 Q Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Smt. S. Narasamma Date Of Hearing: 31/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

depreciation. Even in the assessments u/s 153A, AO has made additions on the basis of the material already on record. In the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the Hon'ble Courts have ruled as under:- i) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd reported

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 , 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 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

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153A of the Act. 28. In the facts of the present case also, admittedly, the Director of the assessee company has admitted to the unaccounted toll receipts recorded in the diary seized from the premises of assessee. The case of assessee before us is that the addition, if any, is to be limited to the period for which

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153A of the Act. 28. In the facts of the present case also, admittedly, the Director of the assessee company has admitted to the unaccounted toll receipts recorded in the diary seized from the premises of assessee. The case of assessee before us is that the addition, if any, is to be limited to the period for which

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153A of the Act. 28. In the facts of the present case also, admittedly, the Director of the assessee company has admitted to the unaccounted toll receipts recorded in the diary seized from the premises of assessee. The case of assessee before us is that the addition, if any, is to be limited to the period for which

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Ble

153A of the Act, dt.10.11.2014 was issued. In response to notice, the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 07.08.2015 declaring total income at Rs.6,67,070/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the firm M/s. Srinivas and Shri P. Amruth Prasad, each having 50% profit and loss ratio

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

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

depreciation at 12.5%. Besides that the Assessing Officer vide his order dt.31.12.2007 had disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2005-06 is reproduced hereinbelow (page 19 of the assessment order):- “The proviso to section 80IA(4)(1)(c) lays down that

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

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

depreciation at 12.5%. Besides that the Assessing Officer vide his order dt.31.12.2007 had disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2005-06 is reproduced hereinbelow (page 19 of the assessment order):- “The proviso to section 80IA(4)(1)(c) lays down that