VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

depreciation by VITP has already been\ninquired by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (e-verification) vide notice dated\nSeptember 27, 2019 issued under Section

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 under Section 32(iia) ought to be granted is 35 per cent and not 20 per cent. Investment allowance under Section 32AC 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

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(iia) ought to be\ngranted is 35 per cent and not 20 per cent.\nInvestment allowance under Section 32AC\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 the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

depreciation of Rs. 271,70,42,063/- (Rs. 6,33,98,10,083/- Rs. 362,27,68,020/-) is disallowed and added back to the income returned. Addition: Rs. 271,70,42,063/- 13 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. 7. The CIT-DR submitted that the scope and ambit of Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

27 taxmann.com 50, wherein the Hon’ble High Court in Paras 11 and 12 had held as under : “11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the appellant’s alternative submission that if the expenditure is treated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they are depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of "know-how", "patents", "copyrights", "trademarks", "licenses", "franchises

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

27 taxmann.com 50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in Paras 11 and 12 had held as under : "11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the appellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is treated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they are depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of "know-how", "patents", "copyrights", "trademarks", "licenses", "franchises

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

depreciation on intangible asset. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine whether the order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and Section 143(3B) of the Act dated 15.04.2021 is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in light of the relevant 27

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

section 31(1)(ii) and 6th proviso, provided therein and after considering the relevant facts held as under : 25 East India Petroleum Limited 26 East India Petroleum Limited 18. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Teksystems Global Services (P) Ltd.(supra), where, the Tribunal has considered an identical issue

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

27 ITA.No.111/Hyd./2022 Petroleum Ltd., [2025] 171 taxment.com 692 (Hyderabad- Tribu.) submitted that, a similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench and held that, excess consideration paid over and above the net asset value of the company, is treated as ‘goodwill’ and eligible for depreciation under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act, as per which, no TDS is required to be deducted on payment of bank interest and accordingly no disallowance could be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, in case of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,27

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

27 taxmann.com 50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in\nParas 11 and 12 had held as under :\n\"11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the\nappellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is\ntreated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they\nare depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of\n\"know-how\", \"patents\", \"copyrights\", \"trademarks

EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

27 taxmann.com 50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in\nParas 11 and 12 had held as under :\n\"11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the\nappellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is\ntreated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they\nare depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of\n\"know-how\", \"patents\", \"copyrights\", \"trademarks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

27 taxmann.com 50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in\nParas 11 and 12 had held as under :\n\n"11.\nThis question arose as a direct sequel to the\nappellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is\ntreated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they\nare depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of\n\"know-how\", \"patents\", \"copyrights

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

27 taxmann.com 50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in\nParas 11 and 12 had held as under :\n\"11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the\nappellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is\ntreated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they\nare depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of\n\"know-how\", \"patents\", \"copyrights\", \"trademarks

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVAT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

27 March 2006. Thus, the Respondent fulfils Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. both the conditions for the purpose of claiming depreciation under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

27 March 2006. Thus, the Respondent fulfils Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. both the conditions for the purpose of claiming depreciation under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

27 March 2006. Thus, the Respondent fulfils Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. both the conditions for the purpose of claiming depreciation under section