UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

198/-, we find that the issue is Page 11 of 59 ITA Nos 1018 and 1230 of 2017 Andhra Bank squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Benches in appellant’s own case for the A.Y 2007-08 in ITA No.167/Hyd/2014. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal after considering relevant facts and by following certain

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 147. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works Ltd., 198 ITR 297 it not for the benefit of assessee. Since, assessee has offered incomes originally which were accepted, the proceedings being initiated are only to add some more to the originally admitted incomes. Therefore, on that context, the revised returns and revised audit reports

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the\ntime of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no\njurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA\nafter the search proceedings carried out on the searched person\nwhen no incriminating material was found disclosing the\nescapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act.\n\n8.\nPer

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the\ntime of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no\njurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA\nafter the search proceedings carried out on the searched person\nwhen no incriminating material was found disclosing the\nescapement of income as required u/s 153C of the Act.\n8.\nPer contra

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the\ntime of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no\njurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA\nafter the search proceedings carried out on the searched person\nwhen no incriminating material was found disclosing the\nescapement of income as required u/s 153C

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

198/- u/s 80IA of the Act at the time of original assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the claim under Section 80IA after the search proceedings carried out on the searched person 12 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV when no incriminating material was found disclosing the escapement of income as required u/s 153C

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Ble

depreciation of the machine and not on the interest paid by it. 16) Moreover, the purchase effected from the Kaiser Jeep Corporation is in respect of plant, machinery and tooling equipments which are capital assets of the Respondent. It is important to note that the said purchase amount had not been debited to the trading account or to the profit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

depreciation of the machine and not on\nthe interest paid by it.\n16) Moreover, the purchase effected from the Kaiser Jeep Corporation is\nin respect of plant, machinery and tooling equipments which are capital\nassets of the Respondent. It is important to note that the said purchase\namount had not been debited to the trading account or to the profit

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 10AA of the Act does not explicitly provide the time line for realization of export proceeds. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

198 ITR 297 (SC). 24. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgements cited by the respective parties. In the present case, search and seizure action was carried out in the residential premises of one Shri Mukhesh Sharma in July, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents were

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

198 ITR 297 (SC). 24. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgements cited by the respective parties. In the present case, search and seizure action was carried out in the residential premises of one Shri Mukhesh Sharma in July, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents were

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

198 ITR 297 (SC). 24. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgements cited by the respective parties. In the present case, search and seizure action was carried out in the residential premises of one Shri Mukhesh Sharma in July, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents were

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

198 ITR 297 (SC). 24. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgements cited by the respective parties. In the present case, search and seizure action was carried out in the residential premises of one Shri Mukhesh Sharma in July, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents were

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

198 ITR 297 (SC). 24. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgements cited by the respective parties. In the present case, search and seizure action was carried out in the residential premises of one Shri Mukhesh Sharma in July, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents were

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

198 ITR 297 (SC). 24. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgements cited by the respective parties. In the present case, search and seizure action was carried out in the residential premises of one Shri Mukhesh Sharma in July, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents were

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

198 ITR 297 (SC). 24. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgements cited by the respective parties. In the present case, search and seizure action was carried out in the residential premises of one Shri Mukhesh Sharma in July, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents were

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

Section under which Sr. Amount of Name of the Unit Deduction/Exemptio No. Deduction/ n claimed 26,21,39,692 14.06% 12.33% 1 Unit V - (SEZ Sec. 10AA Jedcharla) 75,54,69,091 67.60% 40.33% Sec. 10AA 2 Unit VA - (SEZ Jedcharla) 3 Unit IX - Sec. 10AA 2,41,02,756 15.27% 13.25% (SEZ Nakkapally) 4 Unit IV - Baddi Sec 80IC