GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

30 to 36, the expressions "expenses incurred" as well as "allowances and depreciation" has also been used. For example, depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022

depreciation disallowed in the previous year. Investment allowance under Section 32AD 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 as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation of penalty under Section 270A

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 disallowed in the previous year. 7 ITA.Nos.125 & 474/Hyd./2022 Investment allowance under Section 32AD 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 as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation

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

depreciation of INR 35,30,75,403 under section 32 of the Act in respect of goodwill arising on amalgamation

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.

30-11-2016, declaring a loss of ₹1751.67 crore, later revised on 16-03-2018. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine large refund claims, significant international transactions, low income compared to high loans/investments, and capital gains on property sales. 3 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. Notices under sections

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and the alternate contention of assessee that the project be treated as plant & machinery and depreciation be allowed, was rejected vide para 30

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and the alternate contention of assessee that the project be treated as plant & machinery and depreciation be allowed, was rejected vide para 30

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and the alternate contention of assessee that the project be treated as plant & machinery and depreciation be allowed, was rejected vide para 30

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

30 days in filing the present appeal before 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

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

depreciation of Rs. 5,47,59,555/- claimed by the assessee was allowed, even though the assessee was having taxable income for the asst. years 2011-12 and 2012-13. (iii) Assessee has sold land during the financial year for a consideration of Rs.3,56,25,000/- on which capital gains of Rs. 2,15,93,863/- was offered. However

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

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Section 32. Those decisions were based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 (128) ITR 294 (SC) and subsequent cases which have ruled that goodwill is a depreciable capital asset. So far as the decisions in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court clearly limited its holding that the right

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

depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss of Rs.31,,30,62,327/-. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), he deleted the disallowances made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before

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

depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss of Rs.31,,30,62,327/-. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), he deleted the disallowances made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before

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

depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss of Rs.31,,30,62,327/-. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), he deleted the disallowances made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before

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

depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss of Rs.31,,30,62,327/-. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), he deleted the disallowances made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before

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

depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss of Rs.31,,30,62,327/-. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), he deleted the disallowances made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before

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

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee had also challenged the disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 37 of the Act, on the ground that the interest expenditure covered u/s 30 to 36 needs to be dealt with relevant provisions of the Act and cannot be dealt under the provisions of section

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

section 43(6) of Act. Hence, the VITP Pvt. Ltd. claimed excess WDV of Rs.56,78,75,869/-. This excess WDV resulted in excess claim of depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/- in AY 2017- 18 with a tax effect of Rs.1,76,48,487 including interest u/s 234B. The balance excess WDV of Rs.53,41,04,082/- with

M/S SERVOMAX INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Servomax India Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad Tax, Circle 3(1) Pan: Aafcs 0247 R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 30(a)(i). The question of disallowing such an expenditure and relegating the assessee to claim depreciation under Section