DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 31 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the contention of the assessee and the Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee was claiming depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 31 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the contention of the assessee and the Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee was claiming depreciation

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 31 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the contention of the assessee and the Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee was claiming depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GLOBAL ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., SECUNDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 31 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the contention of the assessee and the Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee was claiming depreciation

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

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(ia), without revising the\nopening WDV of plant and machinery on account of the amount of\ndepreciation disallowed in the previous year.\nInvestment allowance under Section 32AD\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

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.

31 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. (d) any vehicle; or (e) any plant or machinery, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” of any previous year.] 17. Firstly, we will deal with

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

31-03-2017 of M/s Flagship Developers Pvt. Ltd\nwas not adopted as actual cost in the depreciation schedule of M/s VITP\nPvt. Ltd. as per explanation 2 of section

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 / amortization of cost incurred for development of toll road. In light of CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2014 dated 23.04.2014. Further, in our considered view, the CBDT Circulars are mandatory in nature and binding on the A.O. Therefore, once the the A.O. has passed the assessment order without considering the mandatory nature of the Circulars issued by the CBDT

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

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciable intangible asset. As discussed earlier, each of the species of rights spelt-out in Section 32(1)(ii), i.e. know-how, patent, copyright, trademark, license or franchise as or any other right of a similar kind which confers a business or commercial or any other business or commercial right of similar nature has to be "intangible asset". The nature

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. 17. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Trivitron Healthcare P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). The ITAT in the context of goodwill arising on account of amalgamation has considered the issue in light of provisions of section 31

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

31 March 2021, contemplated under section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages: a. Section 148A(a) to conduct any enquiry

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 and recognized in the books as per the Hon'ble NCLT order sanctioning the amalgamation. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing INR 42.97.430 under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

depreciation @ 10% and not " Plant & Machinery".\n(vii) Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.\nITA No.284/Hyd/2024 A.Y (2016-17)- (Assessee)\n1. Your Appellant submits that the provision of section 40A(9) are not applicable to the\nfacts of the case, being reimbursement/grant of deficit in the actual expenditure\nincurred by schools run by Singareni

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

depreciation @25% on film software library\nby treating it as an intangible asset Ignoring the finding of A.O.\nthat the said asset is an integral part of the tools used by the\nassessee to carry on its business and needs to be treated Plant\nand Machinery?\n9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing

AVIS HOSPITALS INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Avis Hospitals India Vs. The Acit,Circle-1(1) Limited Hyderabad-500 029 8-3-598/A/5, Road No.10 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 033

31,23,000/- as per the depreciation schedule and the difference amount of Rs. 3,96,87,209/- after deducting the value of security deposits etc. was treated as goodwill on which depreciation @ 25% has been claimed. We find the AO rejected the claim of depreciation on goodwill by relying the provision of section

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

depreciation @25% on film software library\nby treating it as an intangible asset Ignoring the finding of A.O.\nthat the said asset is an integral part of the tools used by the\nassessee to carry on its business and needs to be treated Plant\nand Machinery?\n9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

section 251(1) of the Act. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation @ 25% on ‘Film Software Library’ instead of 15% allowable on ‘Plant and Machinery’.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged

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

depreciation @25% on film software library\nby treating it as an intangible asset Ignoring the finding of A.O.\nthat the said asset is an integral part of the tools used by the\nassessee to carry on its business and needs to be treated Plant\nand Machinery?\n9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing