REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

depreciation under Section 32(ia), without revising the\nopening WDV of plant and machinery on account of the amount of\ndepreciation disallowed in the previous year.\nInvestment allowance under Section 32AD\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO,\nunder the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating\nthat

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

section 32 shall be deemed\nto be depreciation 'actually allowed'.\"\n10.\nFrom the reading of Explanation 2A extracted above, it is\npatently clear that the written down value of the transferred capital\nasset to the amalgamated company would be the same as it would\nhave been if the amalgamating company continue to hold the capital\nasset for the purpose

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

depreciation of INR 2,30,55,887 on the capital expenditure, which had been previously disallowed in the return of income filed, despite the Appellant's acceptance of the disallowance of capital expenditure amounting to INR 34,58,38,297. 8. The Hon’ble CIT(A) is erroneous in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B and penaltyimposed

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

234B / 234C On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B/234C of the Act. 11. Penalty Proceedings On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Ld. AO / Ld. DRP have erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A and 271AA, without

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

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

depreciation disallowance and addition of unexplained cash deposits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, upholding the disallowance of interest on delayed TDS remittance. The plea regarding denial of opportunity of being heard was rejected.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["144", "37(1)", "69", "137,887", "40(a)(ia)", "234B

BIOGENEX LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation and allowance of Rs. 1,87,83,938/-under section 35(4) of the Act while passing the Final Assessment Order dated 27.01.2022. 9. The Ld. AO/ TPO / DRP erred in not considering the MAT credit of Rs. 27,66,279/- available under section 115JB of the Act while passing the Final Assessment Order dated

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

234B on the assessed income and thus the ground no.7 is dismissed accordingly. The ground no. 1 and 8 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 9. The explanation given by the assessee was examined by the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) and by the Bench also, on examination

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

234B on the assessed income and thus the ground no.7 is dismissed accordingly. The ground no. 1 and 8 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 9. The explanation given by the assessee was examined by the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) and by the Bench also, on examination

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

234B on the assessed income and thus the ground no.7 is dismissed accordingly. The ground no. 1 and 8 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 9. The explanation given by the assessee was examined by the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) and by the Bench also, on examination

MALAXMI AGRI VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Malaxmi Agri Ventures Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(4) Pan:Aaccc6517F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri K P R R Murty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16

depreciation loss of Rs. 6,96,920/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without prejudice, whether the stating that the learned Authorities below are correct in Appellant has carried only agricultural business, even when operations and not the Appellant has demonstrated that the agricultural activity was carried out on leased lands by employing advance machinery, technology

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

234B. As the charging of interest is mandatory and consequential, the ground raised is rejected. The Ground no.2 to 6 are against the treatment of expenditure incurred on 'dyes' as capital expenditure and allowing depreciation. The issue is discussed by the Assessing Officer in the order as under: "During the course of scrutiny proceedings the assessee was asked vide order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

234B. As the charging of interest is mandatory and consequential, the ground raised is rejected. The Ground no.2 to 6 are against the treatment of expenditure incurred on 'dyes' as capital expenditure and allowing depreciation. The issue is discussed by the Assessing Officer in the order as under: "During the course of scrutiny proceedings the assessee was asked vide order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

234B. As the charging of interest is mandatory and consequential, the ground raised is rejected. The Ground no.2 to 6 are against the treatment of expenditure incurred on 'dyes' as capital expenditure and allowing depreciation. The issue is discussed by the Assessing Officer in the order as under: "During the course of scrutiny proceedings the assessee was asked vide order