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

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

16,15,643 – Rs.5,37,68,472) Rs.12,78,47,171/- was disallowed and brought to tax. Page 2 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, on verification of the P&L A/c, the AO noted that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.1,11,47,486/- towards provision

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

16,15,643 – Rs.5,37,68,472) Rs.12,78,47,171/- was disallowed and brought to tax. Page 2 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, on verification of the P&L A/c, the AO noted that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.1,11,47,486/- towards provision

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

16,15,643 – Rs.5,37,68,472) Rs.12,78,47,171/- was disallowed and brought to tax. Page 2 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 4. Further, on verification of the P&L A/c, the AO noted that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.1,11,47,486/- towards provision

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

16-03-2018. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine large refund claims, significant international transactions, low income compared to high loans/investments, and capital gains on property sales. 3 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued, and the assessee provided necessary financial documents, including audit reports

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

depreciation on capital cost incurred for construction of toll road. The right received by the assessee is emerging as a result of the cost incurred by the company on development, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility, and such a right is in the nature of intangible asset falling within the purview of Section

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

depreciation in accordance with law in the hands of the seller, the question of putting such assets to use by the assessee does not arise and only requirement is compliance with the 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. 16

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 142A of the Act and after considering relevant valuation report submitted by the valuer, the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of depreciation of non-compete fee. In this regard, he has submitted relevant observations of the Tribunal and also the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-2009 dated 19.05.2023 where

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

16. Further, we wish to submit that the aforesaid issue of claim of depreciation by VITP has already been inquired by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (e-verification) vide notice dated September 27, 2019 issued under Section

PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 11(6) of the Act restricting allowance of depreciation will be applicable to assets acquired during previous relevant to said AY 2015¬16

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

16. During the financial year relevant to assessment year 2017-2018, the assessee has introduced goodwill of Rs.141,23,01,606/- and claimed depreciation of Rs.35,30,75,402/-. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the nature of goodwill and depreciation claimed on such goodwill. In response, the assessee submitted that, the wholly owned subsidiary of assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 251(1) of the Act. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation @ 25% on ‘Film Software Library’ instead of 15% allowable on ‘Plant and Machinery’.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged

ITO, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PADMA VAMSI TEXTILE MARKET PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Padma Vamsi Textile Market Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aadcp 3957F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Komali Krishna Assessee By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Murthy Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-05-2019

depreciable asset, section 50A applies, as per which, the cost of acquisition should be replaced by WDV as per clause 6 of section 43 of the Act. When WDV of the block is considered as cost of acquisition, the AO is directed to calculate the capital gains after adopting the WDV of the block as cost of acquisition. This ground

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

depreciation on 'right to collect toll' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Thus, reliance on the decision of MIs PVR Industries ltd may not be of any avail for the learned CIT(OR). 2.20 The Learned CIT(OR) vide submission dated 16

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

depreciation on 'right to collect toll' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Thus, reliance on the decision of MIs PVR Industries ltd may not be of any avail for the learned CIT(OR). 2.20 The Learned CIT(OR) vide submission dated 16

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

depreciation on 'right to collect toll' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Thus, reliance on the decision of MIs PVR Industries ltd may not be of any avail for the learned CIT(OR). 2.20 The Learned CIT(OR) vide submission dated 16

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

depreciation on 'right to collect toll' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Thus, reliance on the decision of MIs PVR Industries ltd may not be of any avail for the learned CIT(OR). 2.20 The Learned CIT(OR) vide submission dated 16

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

depreciation on 'right to collect toll' under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Thus, reliance on the decision of MIs PVR Industries ltd may not be of any avail for the learned CIT(OR). 2.20 The Learned CIT(OR) vide submission dated 16