THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

155 shall apply; [( v) where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

155 shall apply; [( v) where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

155 shall apply; [( v) where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

155 shall apply; [( v) where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

155 shall apply; [( v) where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCL GREEN HABITATS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections : Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money or any property received— (a) from any relative

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections. Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money or any property received- (a) from any relative

K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections. Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money or any property received- (a) from any relative

N JAIVEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections. Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money or any property received- (a) from any relative

K LAXMA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections. Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money or any property received- (a) from any relative

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. VINSRI INFOTECH, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

depreciation 2,20,22,155 4,37,42,203 6. Other expenditure @ 15% on 1,50,69,307 1,50,69,307 Gross Profit 7. Total undisclosed income: 2,86,72,896 S.No. Description Amt in Rs. 1 Income Tax thereon @60% 1,72,03,738 2 Add surcharge @5% 8,80,187 3 Total Tax and surcharge

M/S VINSRI INFOTECH,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

depreciation 2,20,22,155 4,37,42,203 6. Other expenditure @ 15% on 1,50,69,307 1,50,69,307 Gross Profit 7. Total undisclosed income: 2,86,72,896 S.No. Description Amt in Rs. 1 Income Tax thereon @60% 1,72,03,738 2 Add surcharge @5% 8,80,187 3 Total Tax and surcharge

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

155/- was admitted claiming a depreciation of :- 5 -: ITA Nos.730 & 731/Hyd/2016 C.O.Nos.8 & 9/Hyd/2021 Rs.10,50,35,858/- and books of accounts of the assessee are audited as provided u/s 44AB of the IT Act and as per the Accountants the amount disaIlowable u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act r.w.r 6DD is at Rs.40,20,600/- which is added

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

155/- was admitted claiming a depreciation of :- 5 -: ITA Nos.730 & 731/Hyd/2016 C.O.Nos.8 & 9/Hyd/2021 Rs.10,50,35,858/- and books of accounts of the assessee are audited as provided u/s 44AB of the IT Act and as per the Accountants the amount disaIlowable u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act r.w.r 6DD is at Rs.40,20,600/- which is added

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SOUTH ASIAN CERAMIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 69. 6. Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds. which may be necessary.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of ceramic tiles had filed its return of income for AY 2022-23 on 26/10/2022 declaring a loss of (Rs.18,74,49,155/-). Thereafter

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

section 14A of the Act and disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 5,00,40,155/- by applying the method laid down under Rule 8D. 3. The CIT(A) erred in failing to direct AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 21,45,79,886/- claimed u/s. 10B of the Act in respect of Export Oriented Undertaking (hereinafter referred

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

section 14A of the Act and disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 5,00,40,155/- by applying the method laid down under Rule 8D. 3. The CIT(A) erred in failing to direct AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 21,45,79,886/- claimed u/s. 10B of the Act in respect of Export Oriented Undertaking (hereinafter referred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

155 (Rajasthan). 5. At the outset, we find that the identical issue was decided in favour of the Revenue by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1534/Hyd/2016 in the case of M/s. Thermal Powertech Corporation India Limited for the AY 2012-13 vide Order dated 26/04/2017. The questions framed and answered by the Tribunal on the identical