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

1) of the Act, dated 10/03/2022, Page Nos.\n145 to 146 of APB, which reads as under:\n\"ANNEXURE\nFrom the details available on record, it is observed that the\nassessee has claimed 100% depreciation of Rs. 7,34,14,979/- on solar\npower plant (80% on power plant -20% additional depreciation) in A.Y.\n2015-16. However, the assessee

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

256,91,48,125/-.\n5.\nAggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal\nbefore the CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings,\nthe assessee company filed additional evidence, which was forwarded\nby the CIT(A) to the AO for verification. In reply, the AO filed a “remand\nreport\" dated 09.01.2024. Thereafter, the assessee company filed a\nrejoinder dated

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

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(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

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

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

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

256,628 | 620,000 | 8,247,500 | | | | 25,501,428 |\n| 29th | 5,429,845 | 230,000 | 6,408,269 | 400,599 | 1,000,000 | 3,905,000 | | | 17,403,713 |\n| 30th | 1,345,000 | 25,000 | 1,070,000 | 20,000 | 2,105,000 | | | | 4,560,000 |\n| 31st

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

VASU 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

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