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

255 incurred for efficient running of business and claimed as expenses, are actually capital in nature and depreciation should be claimed on the same. Computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act 6. (a) erred in excluding the gross amount of foreign exchange gain on hedging with forward contracts / marked to market gains

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), 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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATHI vs. M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED,, TIRUPATHI

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

7 and the non-moving and obsolete stock has been reduced from the stores and spares (as valued and certified by Management). The difference between the provision as on 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009 is the sum of Rs.4.32 crores. However, M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. we find that though it is mentioned as a provision

M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

7 and the non-moving and obsolete stock has been reduced from the stores and spares (as valued and certified by Management). The difference between the provision as on 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009 is the sum of Rs.4.32 crores. However, M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. we find that though it is mentioned as a provision

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ELGEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act by the President of the Tribunal for disposal of any particular case and there is no question of anticipating the decision for or against a party. A Special Bench is constituted by the President of the Tribunal to consider issues of substantial importance on which conflicting opinions may have been expressed

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

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

7) The Assessing Officer having perused the books of account-and records Maintained by the Appellant and baying verified them, without adverse findings specifically, should not have invoked the, provisions of 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

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

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

7) The Assessing Officer having perused the books of account-and records Maintained by the Appellant and baying verified them, without adverse findings specifically, should not have invoked the, provisions of 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

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

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

7) The Assessing Officer having perused the books of account-and records Maintained by the Appellant and baying verified them, without adverse findings specifically, should not have invoked the, provisions of 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

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

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

7 -: C.O.No.28/Hyd/2019 raise a contention which is contrary to the circulars and instructions issued by the Board. 11. ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF CBDT INSTRUCTION IS NOT SUSTANAIBLE IN LAW Since the Instruction Issued by CBDT is binding on all revenue authorities who are "responsible for implementation of the Act, any proceeding initiated or any order passed making

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

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. It was observed (at page 270): Page 10 of 16 ITA 90 of 2018 Kamineni Health Services P Ltd "I is no doubt true that, but for the new section, various kinds of arguments could have been raised regarding the year in which such liability should be adjusted. But, we think, arguments could also have been raised

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed appeals in the High Court which were dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. In the assessment year 1991-92, the Assessing Officer noticed that in addition to the sum of Rs. 82 lakhs advanced in the assessment year 1990-91, a further sum of Rs. 37,85,000 had been

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

7. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed appeals in the High Court which were dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. In the assessment year 1991-92, the Assessing Officer noticed that in addition to the sum of Rs. 82 lakhs advanced in the assessment year 1990-91, a further sum of Rs. 37,85,000 had been

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

7. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed appeals in the High Court which were dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. In the assessment year 1991-92, the Assessing Officer noticed that in addition to the sum of Rs. 82 lakhs advanced in the assessment year 1990-91, a further sum of Rs. 37,85,000 had been

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

7. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed appeals in the High Court which were dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. In the assessment year 1991-92, the Assessing Officer noticed that in addition to the sum of Rs. 82 lakhs advanced in the assessment year 1990-91, a further sum of Rs. 37,85,000 had been