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 43(1). 3.6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs.183 Crores. on the erroneous understanding that Appellant had separately claimed depreciation on intangible assets of Rs.1,464 crores in addition to depreciation on total goodwill of Rs.4,492 Crores, resulting in double disallowance of depreciation

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), 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

1)(ii) of the Act. 24. Now, coming to the second issue raised in the present appeal i.e. estimation of toll receipts in the hands of assessee. During the course of search proceedings carried out in the Ashoka Group of cases, a diary was found from the possession of assessee, wherein admittedly, unaccounted receipts were noted for the period

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

1)(ii) of the Act. 24. Now, coming to the second issue raised in the present appeal i.e. estimation of toll receipts in the hands of assessee. During the course of search proceedings carried out in the Ashoka Group of cases, a diary was found from the possession of assessee, wherein admittedly, unaccounted receipts were noted for the period

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), 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

1)(ii) of the Act. 24. Now, coming to the second issue raised in the present appeal i.e. estimation of toll receipts in the hands of assessee. During the course of search proceedings carried out in the Ashoka Group of cases, a diary was found from the possession of assessee, wherein admittedly, unaccounted receipts were noted for the period

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession" of any previous year. With a view to ensure that the manufacturing units which are set up by availing this proposed incentive actually contribute to economic growth of these :- 10 -: M/s Maheswari Mining & Energy Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. backward areas by carrying

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

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

1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to verify and allow the depreciation on non-compete fee which is in contravention to the provisions of section 251

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. 6. As regards ground No. 1, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on the leasehold premises to make it fit for its working is revenue

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. 6. As regards ground No. 1, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on the leasehold premises to make it fit for its working is revenue

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. 6. As regards ground No. 1, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on the leasehold premises to make it fit for its working is revenue

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

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(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

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

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(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

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , 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

CURIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(AFTER MERGER AMRI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciation to the tune of Rs.1,66,42,682/- i.e. (2,93,54,593-1,93,47,324). 6. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed certain additional evidences. However the ld.CIT(A) rejected the additional evidences on the ground that the case of the assessee does not fall within any of the four points of sub-section (1

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

1) provides that in computing total income of the assessee, there shall be allowed from the gross total income the deductions specified in sections 80-C to 80-U. Sub-section (2) further provides that the aggregate amount of deductions under this Chapter shall not in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee. The gross total income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 40(b )(iv) of the I. 1. Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected.” 10.2 We observe from the financial statements that the assessee company itself is a subsidiary company and it has given advances to its subsidiaries, fellow subsidiaries, ultimate holding company and to others and invested in shares also

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 40(b )(iv) of the I. 1. Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected.” 10.2 We observe from the financial statements that the assessee company itself is a subsidiary company and it has given advances to its subsidiaries, fellow subsidiaries, ultimate holding company and to others and invested in shares also