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

section 40(b )(iv) of the I. 1. Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected.” 10.2 We observe from the financial statements that the assessee company itself is a subsidiary company and it has given advances to its subsidiaries, fellow subsidiaries, ultimate holding company and to others and invested in shares also

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

section 40(b )(iv) of the I. 1. Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected.” 10.2 We observe from the financial statements that the assessee company itself is a subsidiary company and it has given advances to its subsidiaries, fellow subsidiaries, ultimate holding company and to others and invested in shares also

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

section 40(b )(iv) of the I. 1. Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected.” 10.2 We observe from the financial statements that the assessee company itself is a subsidiary company and it has given advances to its subsidiaries, fellow subsidiaries, ultimate holding company and to others and invested in shares also

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

section 40(b )(iv) of the I. 1. Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected.” 10.2 We observe from the financial statements that the assessee company itself is a subsidiary company and it has given advances to its subsidiaries, fellow subsidiaries, ultimate holding company and to others and invested in shares also

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

1) of the Act, dated 10/03/2022, Page Nos. 145 to 146 of APB, which reads as under: "ANNEXURE From the details available on record, it is observed that the assessee has claimed 100% depreciation of Rs. 7,34,14,979/- on solar power plant (80% on power plant -20% additional depreciation) in A.Y. 2015-16. However, the assessee

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(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

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

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

section 147 of the Act which is bad in law. We rely on the following cases for the proposition that "assessment cannot be reopened U/s 147 of the Act on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment". 1) CIT Vs. Bhavji Lavji

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

section 147 of the Act which is bad in law. We rely on the following cases for the proposition that "assessment cannot be reopened U/s 147 of the Act on change of opinion of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment". 1) CIT Vs. Bhavji Lavji

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 256(1) was pending before the High Court for those years. He also contended that the assessee wanted the reappraisal of the same position which was considered by the Division Bench and also by the Delhi High Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s case (supra) and he invited our attention to two decisions of the Madras High Court

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

256 ITR 1) (Del.HC) ii. CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (320 . ITR 561) (SC) iii. ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary . Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299) (SC) iv. Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 1 [(1981) 130 ITR 1] (SC) v. Kohinoor Hatcheries (P.) 1 Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 76 taxmann.com 150 (AP.HC

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

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

256 Delhi HC (Page 108) ii. Crystal Phosphate Ltd vs ACIT (ITA-3630/Del/2009) (Page 109 to 121) iii. Aggarwal Farm Equipment vs ITO (85 TTJ 723) iv. SunitaFinlease Ltd vs DCIT (118 TTJ 263) (Page 122-124) v. PayalKumariJagdhari vs ITO (ITA 23/CHD/2011) vi. S F Chogulevs JCIT (ITA no-458/PN/2012) 12.5 Relying on the above decisions

VASU PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

depreciation of Rs.5,59,911/-. iii) During the financial year relevant to the AY 2010-11 the assessee firm claimed an expenditure of Rs.10,39,571/- towards renovation of office building. As the expenditure is capital in nature the same is disallowed. iv) The assessee has not submitted the proof for deduction of tax at source of expenditure

VENKATA SAI AGENCIES,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

depreciation of Rs.5,59,911/-. iii) During the financial year relevant to the AY 2010-11 the assessee firm claimed an expenditure of Rs.10,39,571/- towards renovation of office building. As the expenditure is capital in nature the same is disallowed. iv) The assessee has not submitted the proof for deduction of tax at source of expenditure