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

depreciation of INR 35,30,75,403 under section 32 of the Act in respect of goodwill arising on amalgamation and recognized in the books as per the Hon'ble NCLT order sanctioning the amalgamation. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing INR 42.97.430 under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation should be claimed on the same. Computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act 6. (a) erred in excluding the gross amount of foreign exchange gain on hedging with forward contracts / marked to market gains of Rs. 106,68,32,843 from the export turnover of ITES for the purpose of computing the deduction under section

COMM VAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Comm Vault Systems Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited Tax, Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc 3708 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

234D of the Act Imposing interest under section 234 D of the Act on the transfer pricing adjustments. 10) Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C), 272BA and 271AA of the Act Imposing penalty under section 271(1)(C), 272BA and 271AA of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice

VENKATESH DAGGUBATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

234D when the refund due was not been issued or granted to the assessee.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a film artist and doing business of film production and distribution. Assessee filed his return of income electronically on 28.09.2009 for the A.Y. 2009-10 admitting total income of Rs.2

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

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)

depreciation, ICDS compliance, TDS payments, assets, borrowings, and other supporting documents. The assessee submitted partial and complete responses on various dates and also participated in video- conference proceedings on 12.09.2023, furnishing explanations on ICDS and related issues. Since the assessee had reported large 6 Gainsight Software Private Limited value international transactions in respect of provision of software development services

NEERAJ KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ITO v. Volkart Brothers and Others, 82 ITR 50 (S.C.) with regard to mistake apparent from record that qualities for an action