MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

288 [2016] (Del.). 12.3 He also referred to 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act and submitted that it is the only mechanism of allocation of depreciation

ROLON SEALS INTERNATIONAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.947/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Rolon Seals International, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 063. Vs. Ward-11(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aarfr2216G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar

288 60 [before the specified date referred to in section 44AB], certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of this section. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last

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. 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. 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 , 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

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

288 ITR 0001Z (SC), the expenses are required to be allowed.” In the given case, the assessee has maintained sales over the years and carried on the business with the help of only 2 persons to monitor the sales. It is not possible to achieve the volume of 24.52 crores without the services of salesmen or agents. Also

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

288 ITR 0001Z (SC), the expenses are required to be allowed.” In the given case, the assessee has maintained sales over the years and carried on the business with the help of only 2 persons to monitor the sales. It is not possible to achieve the volume of 24.52 crores without the services of salesmen or agents. Also

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

288 ITR 0001Z (SC), the expenses are required to be allowed.” In the given case, the assessee has maintained sales over the years and carried on the business with the help of only 2 persons to monitor the sales. It is not possible to achieve the volume of 24.52 crores without the services of salesmen or agents. Also

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

288 ITR 0001Z (SC), the expenses are required to be allowed.” In the given case, the assessee has maintained sales over the years and carried on the business with the help of only 2 persons to monitor the sales. It is not possible to achieve the volume of 24.52 crores without the services of salesmen or agents. Also

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

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] [(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India.] [Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

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

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

depreciation on non-compete fees admitting the additional ground/additional evidence without affording an opportunity of being heard to the AO. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. On perusal of record, we find that there was a delay of 32 days in filing the CO before us. To this effect, the assessee filed

ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

depreciation on non-compete fees admitting the additional ground/additional evidence without affording an opportunity of being heard to the AO. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. On perusal of record, we find that there was a delay of 32 days in filing the CO before us. To this effect, the assessee filed

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