MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

depreciation. 26. The first contention of the assessee before us is that in the absence of any evidence found during the course of search in respect of receipts in the earlier years, no addition can be made in the hands of assessee. In this regard, he had placed reliance on series of decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal. He further

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 251(2) of the Act and asked the assessee to explain, (i) how the goodwill was arrived at and why the goodwill, which is shown as an asset should not be treated as non-existing and added back, (ii) why should the claim of depreciation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 251(2) of the Act and asked the assessee to explain, (i) how the goodwill was arrived at and why the goodwill, which is shown as an asset should not be treated as non-existing and added back, (ii) why should the claim of depreciation

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

depreciation on non-compete fee which is in contravention to the provisions of section 251(1) of the Act. 2. The ld.CIT

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SOUTH ASIAN CERAMIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

depreciation. 3. Thereafter, the AO issued notices under section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the assessee company had in its balance sheet disclosed “unsecured loans” to the tune of Rs.17,38,91,674/-. As the assessee company out of the total loans

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NMDC LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16

section 251 of the Act. Being so, we cannot borrow support from the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 991/Hyd/2011 for AY 2006-07, on which reliance placed by the assessee's counsel. In the present case, there is a categorical finding given by the CIT(A) that there are certain mines not yet commenced. On that mine

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

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

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

OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

depreciation after verification of the bills and vouchers. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) appears to be setting aside the issue to the file of AO which is not permitted as per law. As per section 251

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS INDIA LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P. Madhavi Devi & D.S. Sunder Singh(Through Video Conference) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

depreciation after verification of the bills and vouchers. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) appears to be setting aside the issue to the file of AO which is not permitted as per law. As per section 251

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