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 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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

depreciation from an eligible unit were set off against other income in previous years, they should not be reopened or notionally carried forward again to reduce the Section 801A deduction in the chosen initial assessment year. We find that the “SLP” filed by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court had been dismissed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRINIVASA CHAKRAVARTHI RAJU GOKARAJU, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3) was completed on 28-03-20 13. Therefore, as submitted by the appellant, the revised return was filed well in time. Therefore" the revised return has to be considered by the Assessing Officer. Page 4 of 12 8.3 In the revised return, the appellant has not disclosed the amount of Rs. 27.35 crores as disclosed in the original return

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 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

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

3(b) to 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

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

154-172] (i) ITOV Virat Credit and Housing (P) Ltd, ITAT, (Del) ITA-89/Del/2012 (order Dt 9/2/2018) I Pages-154-172 (ii) S. Goyendra lime chemical Ltd -231 Taxman 73 (MP) (iii) Central India Electric Supply Co Ltd V ITO 51 DTR 51 7.6 No full Satisfaction by AO:- :- 9 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects

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

3,37,78,220/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order under Section 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

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

154 (SC) submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by following the decision of CIT, Kolkata vs., Smifs Securities Limited [2012] 13 SCC 488 (SC), has dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee and upheld the order of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat wherein it has been clearly held that, assessee-company entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill expended

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:\nRs. 3,11,24,473/-; (iii) disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the\nAct: Rs. 32,89,736/-; (iv) disallowance of interest on delayed\nremittance of TDS: Rs.1,37,887/-; and (v) addition of unexplained\ncash deposits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 25,85,800/-. Accordingly,\nthe AO, vide his order passed under Section

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) (HC) 3

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

154,000 | | | 14,229,463 |\n| 26th | 2,734,577 | 1,047,797 | 879,000 | 310,000 | 1,118,000 | 800,000 | | | 6,909,374 |\n| 27th | 3,512,802 | 200,800 | 457,826 | 200,000 | 8,305,700 | 2,847,500 | | 744,811 | 16,571,039 |\n| 28th

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

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