REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

depreciation under Section 32(ia), without revising the\nopening WDV of plant and machinery on account of the amount of\ndepreciation disallowed in the previous year.\nInvestment allowance under Section 32AD\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO,\nunder the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating\nthat

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

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

depreciation, ICDS compliance, TDS payments, assets, borrowings, and other supporting documents. The assessee submitted partial and complete responses on various dates and also participated in video- conference proceedings on 12.09.2023, furnishing explanations on ICDS and related issues. Since the assessee had reported large 6 Gainsight Software Private Limited value international transactions in respect of provision of software development services

S & P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 463/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

section 254 of the Act has the power to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that there is no bar to consider the claim of the assessee for additional depreciation

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1937 and 1938/Hyd/2014 are similar except the amounts involved. Hence, we are reproducing the grounds in ITA No.1937/Hyd/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 only for the sake of brevity. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. “1) The order of the ld.CIT(A) – VII, Hyderabad is erroneous both on facts

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii- a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii- a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order