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

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

2 “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

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law not considering the additional ground of appeal filed on 12/06/20 18 Page 3 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. though the same was admitted and was mentioned in the order and failed to appreciate the fact that company is having exclusive right, license

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law not considering the additional ground of appeal filed on 12/06/20 18 Page 3 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. though the same was admitted and was mentioned in the order and failed to appreciate the fact that company is having exclusive right, license

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law not considering the additional ground of appeal filed on 12/06/20 18 Page 3 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. though the same was admitted and was mentioned in the order and failed to appreciate the fact that company is having exclusive right, license

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

2 of Section 115WB, sub-clause (i) it also clearly excludes expenses incurred or payments made to fulfill any statutory obligation. So, under both the circumstances i.e. even prior to the amendment to the explanation w.e.f. 01.04.2009, the expenditure incurred towards the supply of electricity by the appellant to its employees would be excluded for the purpose of treating

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

2 of Section 115WB, sub-clause (i) it also clearly excludes expenses incurred or payments made to fulfill any statutory obligation. So, under both the circumstances i.e. even prior to the amendment to the explanation w.e.f. 01.04.2009, the expenditure incurred towards the supply of electricity by the appellant to its employees would be excluded for the purpose of treating

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

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 has been defined under section 80B (5) to mean 'the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, before making any deduction under this Chapter.' It therefore follows

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

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

2) Bayer crop science limited Rs. 38,72,492/-. 3) To various other parties totaling to Rs. 99,41,131/- 3.2 The A.O was of the opinion that the payment made to Nunhems BV Ltd is a payment towards IT services rendered and is also a payment made to non-resident Indian and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct

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

2) Bayer crop science limited Rs. 38,72,492/-. 3) To various other parties totaling to Rs. 99,41,131/- 3.2 The A.O was of the opinion that the payment made to Nunhems BV Ltd is a payment towards IT services rendered and is also a payment made to non-resident Indian and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct

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

2) Bayer crop science limited Rs. 38,72,492/-. 3) To various other parties totaling to Rs. 99,41,131/- 3.2 The A.O was of the opinion that the payment made to Nunhems BV Ltd is a payment towards IT services rendered and is also a payment made to non-resident Indian and therefore, the assessee was required to deduct

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.:

section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Ld. AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made disallowances of Rs.5,67,61,002/- on account of reversal of excess provision of rent straight lining, Rs.1,23,38,700/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, Rs.32,08,439/- on account of gratuity, Rs.6

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.:

section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Ld. AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made disallowances of Rs.5,67,61,002/- on account of reversal of excess provision of rent straight lining, Rs.1,23,38,700/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, Rs.32,08,439/- on account of gratuity, Rs.6

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

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 has been defined under section 80B (5) to mean 'the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, before making any deduction under this Chapter.' It therefore follows

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

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