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

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 24 February 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'Ld. CIT'), in so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. b. The Ld. CIT has erred

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

depreciation on the same. 7.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred disallowing the foreign remittance made towards R&D Services availed from Dr. Reddy's Research & Development B.V. (formerly known as Octoplus B.V.) and Support services avalled from Dr Reddy's Laboratories Inc USA under section

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

depreciation on the same. 7.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred disallowing the foreign remittance made towards R&D Services availed from Dr. Reddy's Research & Development B.V. (formerly known as Octoplus B.V.) and Support services avalled from Dr Reddy's Laboratories Inc USA under section

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation accordingly. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. The assessee challenged the order passed under section 250

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

250 to the block of assets\nof VITP includes unabsorbed depreciation of INR 51,49,37,783 not utilized / offset by FDPL. The\nposition has been adopted by the Company in accordance with the principles outlined by Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (2010) 324 ITR 29 (Bom) and it\nmay

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

depreciation @25% amounting to Rs.22,05,65,250/- has been claimed. The Assessing Officer, further observed that as per the provisions of section

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

250/- was distributed among three companies and, as a result, the value of asset of appellant company as on 01.04.2010 was at Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the opening WDV is worked out at Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

depreciation @ 15% and ought to have seen that by any\nstandard can such civil works can only be treated as "Building" which entails\ndepreciation @ 10% and not " Plant & Machinery".\n(vii) Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.\nITA No.286/Hyd/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) - (Assessee)\n1. Your Appellant submits that the provision of section

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

depreciation @ 15% and ought to have seen that by any\nstandard can such civil works can only be treated as \"Building\" which entails\ndepreciation @ 10% and not \" Plant & Machinery\".\n(vii)\nAny other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.\nITA No.286/Hyd/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) - (Assessee)\n1. Your Appellant submits that the provision of Section

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

depreciation on film software library was also set aside for further examination. The Tribunal also dealt with issues related to disallowance under Section 14A and subscription revenue.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "32(1)(ii)", "9A", "9B", "142A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "250

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

250/-\nwas\ndistributed among three\ncompanies and, as a result, the value of asset of appellant\ncompany as on 01.04.2010 was at Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For\nthe assessment year 2017-2018, the opening WDV is\nworked out at Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the\nappellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25%\napplicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined

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

section 251(1) of the Act. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation @ 25% on ‘Film Software Library’ instead of 15% allowable on ‘Plant and Machinery’.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged

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

250/-\nwas\ndistributed among three\ncompanies and, as a result, the value of asset of appellant\ncompany as on 01.04.2010 was at Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For\nthe assessment year 2017-2018, the opening WDV is\nworked out at Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the\nappellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25%\napplicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined

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

250/-\nwas\ndistributed among three\ncompanies and, as a result, the value of asset of appellant\ncompany as on 01.04.2010 was at Rs.212,33,75,625/-. For\nthe assessment year 2017-2018, the opening WDV is\nworked out at Rs.37,79,15,242/- and on which the\nappellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25%\napplicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined

PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section in the same or any other previous year." 4. Given the prospective nature of amendment, there is a consensus that as per sec.11(6) of the Act, w.e.f. AY 2015-16, the cost of any asset acquired by the Trust on or after 01-04-2014 can be claimed as application of income with no depreciation claim in calculation

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is\npartly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation on intangible assets, then, a suitable\nadjustment needs to be given for PLI on comparables. In the\npresent case, going by the ratio of tangible fixed assets to\nintangible asset, the appellant company is having high\nproportionate of intangible assets which is almost unique\ngoing by the other comparables. Since there is no details\nwith regard to comparable financial