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 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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

250 to the block of assets of VITP includes unabsorbed depreciation of INR 51,49,37,783 not utilized / offset by FDPL. The position has been adopted by the Company in accordance with the principles outlined by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Silical Metallurgic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

250,502,072 31,312,759 7.. Goodwill 110,081,342 13,760,168 360,583,414 45,072,927 As per revised (as explained above) 3. Plant & machinery (After capitalization of sales tax liability) 360,583,414 45,072,927 The assessee submits on the facts and circumstances explained in the preceding paragraphs and the evidence filed, appeal

TOSHALI CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

250,502,072 31,312,759 7.. Goodwill 110,081,342 13,760,168 360,583,414 45,072,927 As per revised (as explained above) 3. Plant & machinery (After capitalization of sales tax liability) 360,583,414 45,072,927 The assessee submits on the facts and circumstances explained in the preceding paragraphs and the evidence filed, appeal

TOSHALI CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

250,502,072 31,312,759 7.. Goodwill 110,081,342 13,760,168 360,583,414 45,072,927 As per revised (as explained above) 3. Plant & machinery (After capitalization of sales tax liability) 360,583,414 45,072,927 The assessee submits on the facts and circumstances explained in the preceding paragraphs and the evidence filed, appeal

TOSHALI CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

250,502,072 31,312,759 7.. Goodwill 110,081,342 13,760,168 360,583,414 45,072,927 As per revised (as explained above) 3. Plant & machinery (After capitalization of sales tax liability) 360,583,414 45,072,927 The assessee submits on the facts and circumstances explained in the preceding paragraphs and the evidence filed, appeal

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Progressive Constructions Vs. Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad Pan – Aabcp 2274 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

250/- u/s 14A. As regards disallowance towards PF, the assessee was not appealed the same before the CIT(A). 4. The revenue is in appeal before us against the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 78,01,926/- 5. The facts relating to this ground are, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that

ERIKI MURALI,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(4), TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.622/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

depreciation of Rs.15,22,653/- and interest claimed of Rs.48,58,595/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.77,72,100/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal