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

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

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

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

ROLON SEALS INTERNATIONAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.947/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Rolon Seals International, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 063. Vs. Ward-11(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aarfr2216G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar

250 of the Act by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have appreciated the fact that necessary forms (Form 56F) for claiming deduction u/s 10AA of the Act was duly filed before passing the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and thus deduction claimed by the Appellant cannot be disallowed even on this count

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 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to 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 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to 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 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the ld.CIT(A) dt.27.05.2011 before the ITAT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal under section 250 with reference to section

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

6 East India Petroleum Limited (SC) and argued that depreciation arising on account of amalgamation is in the nature of an intangible asset and the same is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee had also challenged the disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 37 of the Act, on the ground that the interest expenditure covered

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

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

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

6. The first issue that came-up for our consideration from ground no.2 of Revenue’s appeal is disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that, the appellant company was formed as a result of demerger of M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited. The company M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited is, inter

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

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

250(6) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal before or in course of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information shared by the Director General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, Hyderabad that the assessee company had irregularly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

6. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.2 of Revenue's appeal is disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that, the appellant company was formed as a result of demerger of M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited. The company M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited is, inter alia

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the directions of the ITAT in ignoring that Rule 9A and 98 are available only for production of feature films and not for production of TV serials and programmes? 7. Whether, on the facts and circumstance

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