ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Depreciation [now amortization as per (CBDT Circular] and other incidental Office equipment. The entire Plant & Machinery is owned and provided by Gayatri Projects Limited only. As such, the entity is formed by transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Depreciation [now amortization as per (CBDT Circular] and other incidental Office equipment. The entire Plant & Machinery is owned and provided by Gayatri Projects Limited only. As such, the entity is formed by transfer of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose and accordingly, it has not fulfilled the condition laid down in Section

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

depreciation were provided by the\nassessee company in its audit report filed under section 44AB of the Act,\ni.e., in “Form-3CA”, Page No.33 of APB.\n20. On merits, the Ld. AR has drawn our attention to a letter dated\n10/09/2014 issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of\nTelangana addressed to the assessee company, wherein it was\nmentioned that

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

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

section 145 of the Act. 8) The Assessing Officer ought not to have made the add ton of its.40,$1,16,255 separately as expenditure when once the amount was admitted as income in the return submitted and much less when the Income was estimated by rejecting the books of account and estimate the profit in which event it gets

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

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

section 145 of the Act. 8) The Assessing Officer ought not to have made the add ton of its.40,$1,16,255 separately as expenditure when once the amount was admitted as income in the return submitted and much less when the Income was estimated by rejecting the books of account and estimate the profit in which event it gets

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

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

section 145 of the Act. 8) The Assessing Officer ought not to have made the add ton of its.40,$1,16,255 separately as expenditure when once the amount was admitted as income in the return submitted and much less when the Income was estimated by rejecting the books of account and estimate the profit in which event it gets

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

KAMINENI HEALTH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Kamineni Health Services Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaack8313R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Sashank Dundu Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7Th Nov.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Healthcare. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned A.Y Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Business Loss Of Rs.48,33,667/- Under The Normal Provision & Book Profits U/S 115Jb Amounting To Rs. 1,38,45,489/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee To Page 1 Of 16

255, at page 266. Para 2 of the above letter, which is relevant for the present purpose, 18 reproduced below: “The Government agrees that for the purpose of the calculation of depreciation allowance, the cost of Capital assets imported before the date of devaluation should be written off to the extent of the full amount of the additional rupee liability

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 :

255 (Kar.), wherein the computation of book profit with reference to sections 14A and 115JB has been considered and it is held that Explanation 1 in section 115JB(2) has been inserted so as to provide that if any provision for diminution in the value of any asset has been debited to the profit and loss account, it shall

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARAGEN LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.483/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) A.C.I.T. Vs. Aragen Life Sciences Ltd Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabcg3208J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Meghnadh Chowhan,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024

section 115JB. The judgment in case of Deepak Nitrite Limited(supra) fell in the former category whereas from the brief discussion av ailable in the judgment it appears that case of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (supra), fell in the later category. “ 9. In rebuttal, the learned DR submitted that the judgment is applicable as the Delhi Tribunal after relying

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

K LAXMA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

255 ITR 220 and the CBDT Circular No.549 of 31/10/1989 reported in 182 ITR (ST)001, he submitted that the assessment stood terminated and no proceedings were pending as on 30.09.2015. He submitted that when the entire assessment were subject to search u/s 132 on 18.2.2016 and no proceedings were pending in respect of the above mentioned assessees, the question

K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

255 ITR 220 and the CBDT Circular No.549 of 31/10/1989 reported in 182 ITR (ST)001, he submitted that the assessment stood terminated and no proceedings were pending as on 30.09.2015. He submitted that when the entire assessment were subject to search u/s 132 on 18.2.2016 and no proceedings were pending in respect of the above mentioned assessees, the question

N JAIVEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

255 ITR 220 and the CBDT Circular No.549 of 31/10/1989 reported in 182 ITR (ST)001, he submitted that the assessment stood terminated and no proceedings were pending as on 30.09.2015. He submitted that when the entire assessment were subject to search u/s 132 on 18.2.2016 and no proceedings were pending in respect of the above mentioned assessees, the question

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

255 ITR 220 and the CBDT Circular No.549 of 31/10/1989 reported in 182 ITR (ST)001, he submitted that the assessment stood terminated and no proceedings were pending as on 30.09.2015. He submitted that when the entire assessment were subject to search u/s 132 on 18.2.2016 and no proceedings were pending in respect of the above mentioned assessees, the question

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

255, 260) where a mortage company had raised money by the issue of debentures and debentures stock and incurred expenses in this connection. The English High Court said that the expenses would not be deducted as trading expenses because the amount paid was for raising capital. Differing from the observations made therein, this Court observed that a loan

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

255, 260) where a mortage company had raised money by the issue of debentures and debentures stock and incurred expenses in this connection. The English High Court said that the expenses would not be deducted as trading expenses because the amount paid was for raising capital. Differing from the observations made therein, this Court observed that a loan

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

255, (Page 13-104) and Bombay Cloth Syndicate vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 210 Hon'ble Bombay High Court have held that Order passed not following Instruction of CBDT is void and bad in law. 11.2 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette v. CIT 11984] 150 ITR 460 has held that (headnote