DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

depreciation on Rs.183 crores. 3.7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the intangible", assets quantified at Rs.1,464 crore was not supported by any documentary proof. 4. Enhancement by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act: 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

depreciation on Rs.183 crores. 3.7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the intangible", assets quantified at Rs.1,464 crore was not supported by any documentary proof. 4. Enhancement by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act: 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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

depreciable capital assets' and provisions of section 32 of the Act apply. Considering the same, we shall now undertake to discuss the item wise adjudication as follows. a. On the debits relating to the purchases of the News items: Regarding the nature of the news items purchased by the assessee and debited to the P and L account, we find

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

2) of the Act dated\n08.08.2018 was issued to the assessee-company through\nITBA portal. The Assessing Officer also issued statutory\nnotice u/sec.142(1) of the Act and called for the\ninformation. In response to the notices and questionnaires,\nthe assessee-company has furnished the requisite\ninformation through ITBA portal from time to time. During\n6\nITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

2) of the Act dated\n08.08.2018 was issued to the assessee-company through\nITBA portal. The Assessing Officer also issued statutory\nnotice u/sec.142(1) of the Act and called for the\ninformation. In response to the notices and questionnaires,\nthe\nassessee-company has furnished the requisite\ninformation through ITBA portal from time to time. During\n\n6\nITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

211(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the Net Profit after prior period items and extraordinary items in the computation of 'Book Profit's as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Such other ground/grounds that may be urged during the course

A.P. POWER GENERATION CORPN. LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

211(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the Net Profit after prior period items and extraordinary items in the computation of 'Book Profit's as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Such other ground/grounds that may be urged during the course

KONY IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Kony It Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, 9Th Floor, B-6, South Tower, Circle-2(1), Divyasree Orion, Sy. Room No.514, 5Th Floor, No.66/1, Raidurgam, Rr Signature Towers, Opp. Dist., Hyderbad – 500 032. Botanical Garden, Pan: Aaeck 9066 D Kondapur, Hyderabad-84. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri H. Srinivasulu & Sri Kranthi Palivela Ca, Ars Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/11/2019

211(3C) (Which continues to be applicable in terms of General Circular 15/2013 dated September 13, 2013 of the Ministry of Corporate afairs in respect of Section 133 of the companies Act, 1961.” (b) The company also manufactures products such as electronic boards and printer circuits by importing raw materials and holding inventory, as apparent from Page

DST WORLDWIDE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Dst Worldwide Services Dcit, Circle 17(1) India Private Limited Vs. Hyderabad 5Th Floor, Block B Q City Survey # 109, 110, 111/2 Nanakramguda Village Serilingampally Mandal Gachibowli Rr Dist. Hyderabad 500 032 Pan: Aaac17097L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Aliasger Rampurwala, Ar Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31.10.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) & 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 02.09.2020 Through Video Conferencing & Both The Parties Were Heard.

211(3C) (Which continues to be applicable in terms of General Circular 15/2013 dated September 13, 2013 of the Ministry of Corporate affairs in respect of Section 133 of the companies Act, 1961.” (b) The company also manufactures products such as electronic boards and printer circuits by importing raw materials and holding inventory, as apparent from Page

KONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Kony India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Sez Unit Ii, Office Level-7, Circle-2(1), Building No. Ho6, Phoenix Room No.514, 5Th Floor, Info City Private Limited, Signature Towers, Opp. Serilingampally, Hyderabad Botanical Garden, – 500 081. Kondapur, Hyderabad-84. Pan: Aadck 2294 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri H. Srinivasulu & Sri Kranthi Palivela Ca, Ars Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/11/2019

211(3C) (Which continues to be applicable in terms of General Circular 15/2013 dated September 13, 2013 of the Ministry of Corporate afairs in respect of Section 133 of the companies Act, 1961.” (b) The company also manufactures products such as electronic boards and printer circuits by importing raw materials and holding inventory, as apparent from Page

SSNC FINTECH SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

211(3C) (Which continues to be\napplicable in terms of General Circular 15/2013 dated\nSeptember 13, 2013 of the Ministry of Corporate affairs in respect\nof Section 133 of the Companies Act, 1961.”\n(b) The company also manufactures products such as\nelectronic boards and printer circuits by importing raw\nmaterials and holding inventory, as apparent from Page No.\n119

JAYA HOSPITALS,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

211/- whereas assessee claimed Rs. 70,85,488/-. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel that the interest is claimed as per the provisions of the Act on the balances to the credit of the partners. Since the basis for working out the amount by the CIT(A) is not verifiable, in the interest of justice, we direct

JAYA HOSPITALS,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

211/- whereas assessee claimed Rs. 70,85,488/-. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel that the interest is claimed as per the provisions of the Act on the balances to the credit of the partners. Since the basis for working out the amount by the CIT(A) is not verifiable, in the interest of justice, we direct

KAMINENI HEALTH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Kamineni Health Services Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaack8313R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Sashank Dundu Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7Th Nov.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Healthcare. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned A.Y Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Business Loss Of Rs.48,33,667/- Under The Normal Provision & Book Profits U/S 115Jb Amounting To Rs. 1,38,45,489/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee To Page 1 Of 16

2. The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in disallowing foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs 29,56,433/- overlooking the fact that the exchange fluctuation loss on foreign currency loan is intricately connected with a loan liability; in fact, it is in the nature of interest or borrowing cost for a borrowed. Further, Section 36(1)(ii) provides deduction

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2) dated 27.09.2017, copy of which is placed at page no.9 of the paper book volume-I, he submitted that the return selected for scrutiny as mentioned in the said notice is the revised return and not the original return. Referring to the computation of the total income by the AO in the body of the assessment order, he submitted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2) dated 27.09.2017, copy of which is placed at page no.9 of the paper book volume-I, he submitted that the return selected for scrutiny as mentioned in the said notice is the revised return and not the original return. Referring to the computation of the total income by the AO in the body of the assessment order, he submitted