ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.] Page 7 of 12 ITA Nos 552 and 539 of 2020 Ascend Telecom Infrastructure P Ltd 22. The Rules were framed by the Board in accordance with the power conferred on it by section 295 of the Act and the Rules after being framed were laid before the Parliament

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.] Page 7 of 12 ITA Nos 552 and 539 of 2020 Ascend Telecom Infrastructure P Ltd 22. The Rules were framed by the Board in accordance with the power conferred on it by section 295 of the Act and the Rules after being framed were laid before the Parliament

THE PRUDENTIAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. “ From the perusal of above, it is abundantly clear that, the first Proviso to section 147 of the Act, put a restriction for reopening of any case u/s 147, where any assessment had already been done u/s 143(3) or u/s 147 of the Act ITA No.101/Hyd/2018

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

Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. Expenses pertaining to purchases of computer software as Capital Expenditure: Revised Ground 5. erred in holding that the payment for purchase of software and software maintenance, amounting to Rs. 19,24,31,255 incurred for efficient running of business and claimed as expenses, are actually capital in nature and depreciation

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

depreciation on goodwill, Rs.32,08,439/- on account of gratuity, Rs.6,19,251/- on account of ESOP provision and Rs.3,26,536/- on account of leave encashment. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order under section

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

depreciation on goodwill, Rs.32,08,439/- on account of gratuity, Rs.6,19,251/- on account of ESOP provision and Rs.3,26,536/- on account of leave encashment. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order under section

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation in respect of works executed both direct and sub- contract is at 17.26% and net profit is about 7.12% and in respect of back to back contract the profit is at 0.84%, since there is only commission in it. However, the fact remains that what assessee claims of net profit of 7.12% on overall contracts is factually incorrect

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation in respect of works executed both direct and sub- contract is at 17.26% and net profit is about 7.12% and in respect of back to back contract the profit is at 0.84%, since there is only commission in it. However, the fact remains that what assessee claims of net profit of 7.12% on overall contracts is factually incorrect

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 251(1(a) of the IT Act and the revenue has also taken the ground without observing the assessment orders. In view of the above, the ground Nos. 2 to 4 taken for both the years by the revenue become infructuous and the same are dismissed as infructuous. :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 2210 to 2216/Hyd/2017 Vignana Jyothi, Hyd. 8. Another

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 251(1(a) of the IT Act and the revenue has also taken the ground without observing the assessment orders. In view of the above, the ground Nos. 2 to 4 taken for both the years by the revenue become infructuous and the same are dismissed as infructuous. :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 2210 to 2216/Hyd/2017 Vignana Jyothi, Hyd. 8. Another

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 251(1(a) of the IT Act and the revenue has also taken the ground without observing the assessment orders. In view of the above, the ground Nos. 2 to 4 taken for both the years by the revenue become infructuous and the same are dismissed as infructuous. :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 2210 to 2216/Hyd/2017 Vignana Jyothi, Hyd. 8. Another

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 251(1(a) of the IT Act and the revenue has also taken the ground without observing the assessment orders. In view of the above, the ground Nos. 2 to 4 taken for both the years by the revenue become infructuous and the same are dismissed as infructuous. :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 2210 to 2216/Hyd/2017 Vignana Jyothi, Hyd. 8. Another

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 251(1(a) of the IT Act and the revenue has also taken the ground without observing the assessment orders. In view of the above, the ground Nos. 2 to 4 taken for both the years by the revenue become infructuous and the same are dismissed as infructuous. :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 2210 to 2216/Hyd/2017 Vignana Jyothi, Hyd. 8. Another

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 251(1(a) of the IT Act and the revenue has also taken the ground without observing the assessment orders. In view of the above, the ground Nos. 2 to 4 taken for both the years by the revenue become infructuous and the same are dismissed as infructuous. :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 2210 to 2216/Hyd/2017 Vignana Jyothi, Hyd. 8. Another

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 251(1(a) of the IT Act and the revenue has also taken the ground without observing the assessment orders. In view of the above, the ground Nos. 2 to 4 taken for both the years by the revenue become infructuous and the same are dismissed as infructuous. :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 2210 to 2216/Hyd/2017 Vignana Jyothi, Hyd. 8. Another

LAKSHYA PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2012-13 Lakshya Pharma Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8214 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri D.V. Anjaneyulu Revenue By Sri M. Mahidhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2021 Order

section 251(2), also without providing the full remand report with annexure even after prayed by the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law confirming the addition of Rs. 33,47,325/- being the 50% of business promotion expenses of Rs. 66,94,649/- simply relied on the remand report of the A.O. without proper appreciation

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

depreciation on goodwill”. 11. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we hereby allow the grounds of appeal Nos.9 to 11 raised by the assessee. 12. Grounds of appeal 2 to 8 pertains to the notional interest on overdue receivable. In this regard the learned AR had made the following submissions: Page

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years