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

220,49,18,926 - 1,88,58,926 24,79,18,926 3 Total 37,11,75,325 - - - - 4 Provision held towards depreciation 5 Net 184,82,32,589 - -- - - Appellant has submitted that referred investments are Non-SLR Investments, hence they are to be given depreciation. The RBI issued a circular Master Circular on Investments by Primary (Urban) Co-operative

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

220,49,18,926 - 1,88,58,926 24,79,18,926 3 Total 37,11,75,325 - - - - 4 Provision held towards depreciation 5 Net 184,82,32,589 - -- - - Appellant has submitted that referred investments are Non-SLR Investments, hence they are to be given depreciation. The RBI issued a circular Master Circular on Investments by Primary (Urban) Co-operative

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

220,49,18,926 - 1,88,58,926 24,79,18,926 3 Total 37,11,75,325 - - - - 4 Provision held towards depreciation 5 Net 184,82,32,589 - -- - - Appellant has submitted that referred investments are Non-SLR Investments, hence they are to be given depreciation. The RBI issued a circular Master Circular on Investments by Primary (Urban) Co-operative

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

220,49,18,926 - 1,88,58,926 24,79,18,926 3 Total 37,11,75,325 - - - - 4 Provision held towards depreciation 5 Net 184,82,32,589 - -- - - Appellant has submitted that referred investments are Non-SLR Investments, hence they are to be given depreciation. The RBI issued a circular Master Circular on Investments by Primary (Urban) Co-operative

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

220,49,18,926 - 1,88,58,926 24,79,18,926 3 Total 37,11,75,325 - - - - 4 Provision held towards depreciation 5 Net 184,82,32,589 - -- - - Appellant has submitted that referred investments are Non-SLR Investments, hence they are to be given depreciation. The RBI issued a circular Master Circular on Investments by Primary (Urban) Co-operative

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

220 and the CBDT Circular No.549 of 31/10/1989 reported in 182 ITR (ST)001, he submitted that the assessment stood terminated and no proceedings were pending as on 30.09.2015. He submitted that when the entire assessment were subject to search u/s 132 on 18.2.2016 and no proceedings were pending in respect of the above mentioned assessees, the question of making

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

220 and the CBDT Circular No.549 of 31/10/1989 reported in 182 ITR (ST)001, he submitted that the assessment stood terminated and no proceedings were pending as on 30.09.2015. He submitted that when the entire assessment were subject to search u/s 132 on 18.2.2016 and no proceedings were pending in respect of the above mentioned assessees, the question of making

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

220 and the CBDT Circular No.549 of 31/10/1989 reported in 182 ITR (ST)001, he submitted that the assessment stood terminated and no proceedings were pending as on 30.09.2015. He submitted that when the entire assessment were subject to search u/s 132 on 18.2.2016 and no proceedings were pending in respect of the above mentioned assessees, the question of making

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

220 and the CBDT Circular No.549 of 31/10/1989 reported in 182 ITR (ST)001, he submitted that the assessment stood terminated and no proceedings were pending as on 30.09.2015. He submitted that when the entire assessment were subject to search u/s 132 on 18.2.2016 and no proceedings were pending in respect of the above mentioned assessees, the question of making

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

220/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order under Section 154 of the Act, dated 10/11/2021, wherein he rectified the rate of tax applied and subjected the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C of the Act to tax under Section 115BBE, enhancing the demand substantially. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and\nthe revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of\nour observations recorded hereinabove

2) and 142(1), despite\nrepeated opportunities, the AO completed the assessment to the\nbest of his judgment, vide order passed under Section 144 of the\nAct, dated 26/11/2019, determining its income at Rs.\n3,37,78,220/-.\n3. The AO, while framing the assessment made the following\nadditions/disallowances, viz. (i) disallowance of amount claimed\nunder the head “any other

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

220 | | 2,419,000 | 398,000 | | 13,800 | 7,476,242 |\n| 13th | 5,730,145 | 1,420,000 | 4,072,607 | | 600,000 | 184,000 | | | 11,406,752 |\n| 14th | 6,095,900 | 400,000 | 1,575,953 | 659,059 | 2,500,000 | 1,931,000 | | | 13,161,912 |\n| 15th

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

220 The TPO determined Arm's Length Price of fee on Corporate Guarantee fee @1.9% taking into consideration the median of Bank Guarantee rates for the FY 2016¬17 of commercial banks and proposed adjustment of Rs.1.58 crores (1.9% of Rs.87.52 crores). The CIT(A) held that corporate guarantee is covered well within the meaning of international transaction

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

220 The TPO determined Arm's Length Price of fee on Corporate Guarantee fee @1.9% taking into consideration the median of Bank Guarantee rates for the FY 2016¬17 of commercial banks and proposed adjustment of Rs.1.58 crores (1.9% of Rs.87.52 crores). The CIT(A) held that corporate guarantee is covered well within the meaning of international transaction