VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

depreciation. The Ld. Assessing Officer's order does not provide any detailed justification against the judicial precedents cited. In support of his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions : 1. M/s. Liquidators of Pursa Limited vs. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 265 (SC) 2. Multican Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 142 (Calcutta

NETMATRIX CROP CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

288 before the specified date referred to in section 44AB indicating the computation of the net worth of the undertaking or division, as the case may be, and certifying that the net worth of the 9 Netmatrix Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. undertaking or division, as the case may be, has been correctly arrived at in accordance with the provisions

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation claims as per law. 12. Next comes the sixth identical issue of section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance issue of Rs.2,15,24,816/-, Rs.4,73,52,898/-, Rs.2,63,75,111/- and Rs.2,05,29,751/-; assessment year-wise; respectively. Suffice to say, we do not find any exempt income to have been derived in all these four years

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. BLUJAY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KEWILL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2014-15

section, the law has specified the following 6 categories of intangible assets eligible for depreciation: (i) Know-how (ii) Patents (iii) Copyrights (iv) Trademarks (v) Licences (vi) Franchises 11. Therefore, he held that all intangible assets are not eligible for depreciation. He noted that in any business concern the value or the reputation built in the organization represents Page

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

Section 36(1)(ii) provides deduction in respect of interest expenditure incurred in connection with the business of the assessee. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in disallowing finance cost 12% on the advance given to United Steel Allied Industries Pvt Ltd (USAIPL) of Rs 95,50,483/- overlooking the fact that that the appellant had given the money

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

288\nDeduction eligible U/s 80G\n1,88,97,644\nThe assessing officer held that such a deduction is not allowable as\nCSR expenditure by the assessee forms a part of the mandatory\nrequirement of the Companies Act, 2013 and consequently not eligible\nfor deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That the\nintent of the legislature

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

288 Deduction eligible U/s 80G 1,88,97,644 The assessing officer held that such a deduction is not allowable as CSR expenditure by the assessee forms a part of the mandatory requirement of the Companies Act, 2013 and consequently not eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That the intent of the legislature

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

depreciation on contract work executed by the assessee itself. With this, assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed in part. 9. Now coming to Ground No. 3 and also the additional ground of Revenue’s appeal, it relates to disallowance of claim for deduction of Rs. 8,45,39,638/- under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. It was brough

KMC CONTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

depreciation on contract work executed by the assessee itself. With this, assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed in part. 9. Now coming to Ground No. 3 and also the additional ground of Revenue’s appeal, it relates to disallowance of claim for deduction of Rs. 8,45,39,638/- under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. It was brough

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

depreciation on buildings, security charges and municipal taxes to buildings etc., which are allowable expenses under the head ‘Income from business’ and that the same was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the contentions of assessee and held that the assessee’s main intention is to commercially exploit its properties by letting them

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 :

288 (High Court of Gujarat) 4. Dalmia Power Limited Vs. ACIT – (2019) 112 taxmann.com 252 (SC). 9. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the total expenditure incurred by the assessee which wad debited to the Profit and Loss account was Rs.68,26,342/- and out of the said amount

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

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation on works executed. 5.3 Perused the submissions of appellant and the findings/observations of the AO. As could be made out from the facts of the case, the appellant company and the main promoters, namely Mr.MML Narasimham, were covered by the proceedings u/s.132/133A, on 26-03-2012, in connection with search proceedings in other connected cases of infrastructure companies, based

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation on works executed. 5.3 Perused the submissions of appellant and the findings/observations of the AO. As could be made out from the facts of the case, the appellant company and the main promoters, namely Mr.MML Narasimham, were covered by the proceedings u/s.132/133A, on 26-03-2012, in connection with search proceedings in other connected cases of infrastructure companies, based

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

288 ITR 1) we notice that the Tribunal has just accepted arguments without referring to the facts. In the first place, the assumption of the Tribunal is that the advances were made out of own funds because assessee had a huge profit. However, we notice that the interest-free advances made every year is Rs. 2 crores when the assessee