DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVAT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244A does not mandate that the claim of TDS should be made only in the return. It is further submitted the delay is not attributable to the assessee as the department gives credit to the TDS only when reflected in 26AS. The updation of Form 26AS is beyond the control of the assessee and hence the delay in updation

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244A does not mandate that the claim of TDS should be made only in the return. It is further submitted the delay is not attributable to the assessee as the department gives credit to the TDS only when reflected in 26AS. The updation of Form 26AS is beyond the control of the assessee and hence the delay in updation

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244A does not mandate that the claim of TDS should be made only in the return. It is further submitted the delay is not attributable to the assessee as the department gives credit to the TDS only when reflected in 26AS. The updation of Form 26AS is beyond the control of the assessee and hence the delay in updation

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

depreciation on such addition as per section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In absence of section 115BEE and section 69B, for the relevant assessment year 2010-11 the addition of Rs.2,43,713 ought to have been set off against of current year loss of Rs.71,69,984/- 4. Your appellant submits that the difference in estimation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

154 and Explanation 1 (f) to section 115JB being squarely covered, the same cannot be found fault with. We are of the considered view that the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the revenue under section 254(2) of the Act was wholly misconstrued. The Tribunal has distinguished the case of Sobha Developers (supra) relied upon by the revenue with VireetInvestment

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

154 of the Act, dated 10/11/2021, wherein he rectified the rate of tax applied and subjected the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Act to tax under Section 115BBE, enhancing the demand substantially. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of depreciation

AVIS HOSPITALS INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Avis Hospitals India Vs. The Acit,Circle-1(1) Limited Hyderabad-500 029 8-3-598/A/5, Road No.10 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 033

section 32(1) and, thus, it is eligible for depreciation. He submitted that in this case, during relevant assessment year, one ‘Y’ Ltd. amalgamated with assessee- 5 ITA 1390/Hyd/2019 company. According to assessee, excess consideration paid by it over value of net assets acquired of ‘Y’ ltd amounted to goodwill on which depreciation was to be allowed. The Authorities below

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

UNICON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-17(2) , HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Unicorn Industries Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Hyderabad – 500003. Circle 17(2), Pan : Aaacu3501D. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Sri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/12/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 21.09.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1035761358(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

section 154 jurisdiction seeking to disallow the impugned depreciation claim by treating it as an information coming to his notice

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

depreciation. The Ld. Assessing Officer's order does not provide any detailed justification against the judicial precedents cited. In support of his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions : 1. M/s. Liquidators of Pursa Limited vs. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 265 (SC) 2. Multican Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 142 (Calcutta

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and\nthe revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of\nour observations recorded hereinabove

depreciation disallowance and addition of unexplained cash deposits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, upholding the disallowance of interest on delayed TDS remittance. The plea regarding denial of opportunity of being heard was rejected.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["144", "37(1)", "69", "137,887", "40(a)(ia)", "234B", "271(1)(b)", "801B", "69C", "115BBE", "68", "154