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

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 for major maintenance. On further verification, he noted that this

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

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 for major maintenance. On further verification, he noted that this

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

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 for major maintenance. On further verification, he noted that this

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

171 taxment.com 692 (Hyderabad- Tribu.) submitted that, a similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench and held that, excess consideration paid over and above the net asset value of the company, is treated as ‘goodwill’ and eligible for depreciation under section

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation on intangible assets, then, a suitable adjustment needs to be given for PLI on comparables. In the present case, going by the ratio of tangible fixed assets to intangible asset, the appellant company is having high proportionate of intangible assets which is almost unique going by the other comparables. Since there is no details with regard to comparable financial

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

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

171 and 172/Hyd/2013, seeking to recall of the said orders u/s 254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order

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

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

171 and 172/Hyd/2013, seeking to recall of the said orders u/s 254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order

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

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

171 and 172/Hyd/2013, seeking to recall of the said orders u/s 254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order

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

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 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

171 ITR 63. Accordingly a reference was made to the Apex Court. The Apex Court after examining the facts of the case and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (supra) confirmed the judgment of the Madras High Court. The Apex Court has specifically

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

171 ITR 63. Accordingly a reference was made to the Apex Court. The Apex Court after examining the facts of the case and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (supra) confirmed the judgment of the Madras High Court. The Apex Court has specifically

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.:

171 ITR 63. Accordingly a reference was made to the Apex Court. The Apex Court after examining the facts of the case and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (supra) confirmed the judgment of the Madras High Court. The Apex Court has specifically

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

171/- and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.8,17,720/- u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, vide order dated 12.12.2024. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 37 days. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

171 taxmann.com 174 (Del.) (HC). 2. Order of ITAT Raipur in Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar vs., ITO [ITA.No.307/RPR/2024, dated 05.02.2025. 3. Order of ITAT Raipur in DCIT vs., Vinay Agrawal [ITA.No.29 & 30/RPR/2025, dated 17.02.2025. 4. Order of ITAT, Mumbai in ACIT vs., Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani [2025] 174 taxmann.com 783. 5. Order of ITAT, Mumbai in ITO vs., Sumitra Rajeshbhai

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

171 (Mumbai ITAT) 7.21 In view of the aforementioned analysis and settled position of law and after studying the contract agreements(supra), I am of the considered opinion that the assessee had entered into agreements with State Govt. to execute certain works as a contractor on EPC turnkey basis. Nowhere in the agreements it is stated in clear and unequivocal