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

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

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

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

depreciation disallowed in the previous year. 7 ITA.Nos.125 & 474/Hyd./2022 Investment allowance under Section 32AD 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation

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)

depreciation is concerned, such an issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC). In the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), the question was whether the assessee could make a claim for deduction other than

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

254 is allowable under section 37(1) of the IT Act and not u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 13. The appellant contends that the disallowance of the proportionate premium of Rs.54,25,585 towards amounts utilized aggregating to Rs.9.50 crores for paying advance under agreement for purchasing land admeasuring 10579 Sq. Yds at Sanant Nagar, Hyderabad

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

254 is allowable under section 37(1) of the IT Act and not u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act. 13. The appellant contends that the disallowance of the proportionate premium of Rs.54,25,585 towards amounts utilized aggregating to Rs.9.50 crores for paying advance under agreement for purchasing land admeasuring 10579 Sq. Yds at Sanant Nagar, Hyderabad

OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section 32. Therefore, the Parliament has used the expression 'any expenditure in section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression 'expenditure' as used in section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss', even though said amount has not gone out from the pocket

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

depreciation and financial expenses. 11.9 In both the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer held that the respondent-assessee had not commenced business activities as they had not undertaken any manufacturing activity or made downstream investments. It was observed that the respondent- assessee, after receiving approval of Foreign Investment Promotion Soard (FIPS) dated 20.12.2000 acquired shares capital of Ambuja Cement India

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

1 that it had purely executed "works contract" only in view of the fact that the irrigation department had issued it mobilization advances on multiple occasions from time to time. He next took us to agreement clause 3.15 containing "contract price and payment" making it evident that the assessee had to be paid on "fixed lump sum monthly basis" only

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

1 that it had purely executed "works contract" only in view of the fact that the irrigation department had issued it mobilization advances on multiple occasions from time to time. He next took us to agreement clause 3.15 containing "contract price and payment" making it evident that the assessee had to be paid on "fixed lump sum monthly basis" only

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

1 that it had purely executed "works contract" only in view of the fact that the irrigation department had issued it mobilization advances on multiple occasions from time to time. He next took us to agreement clause 3.15 containing "contract price and payment" making it evident that the assessee had to be paid on "fixed lump sum monthly basis" only

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

1 that it had purely executed "works contract" only in view of the fact that the irrigation department had issued it mobilization advances on multiple occasions from time to time. He next took us to agreement clause 3.15 containing "contract price and payment" making it evident that the assessee had to be paid on "fixed lump sum monthly basis" only

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

1 that it had purely executed "works contract" only in view of the fact that the irrigation department had issued it mobilization advances on multiple occasions from time to time. He next took us to agreement clause 3.15 containing "contract price and payment" making it evident that the assessee had to be paid on "fixed lump sum monthly basis" only

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

1 that it had purely executed "works contract" only in view of the fact that the irrigation department had issued it mobilization advances on multiple occasions from time to time. He next took us to agreement clause 3.15 containing "contract price and payment" making it evident that the assessee had to be paid on "fixed lump sum monthly basis" only

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

1 that it had purely executed "works contract" only in view of the fact that the irrigation department had issued it mobilization advances on multiple occasions from time to time. He next took us to agreement clause 3.15 containing "contract price and payment" making it evident that the assessee had to be paid on "fixed lump sum monthly basis" only

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