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

depreciation on Rs.183 crores. 3.7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the intangible", assets quantified at Rs.1,464 crore was not supported by any documentary proof. 4. Enhancement by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act: 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 35(2AB) of the Act and disallowance u/se.14A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the appellant company and the Revenue are now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The first issue that came-up for consideration from grounds of appeal of the appellant company is, TP adjustment in respect of sale

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation. Further, we make it clear that once the income of the assessee is estimated there cannot by an further addition on any account under the head 'income from business' as held by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vishal Infrastructure Ltd., (104 ITD 537) (Hyd). However, income from other heads would be computed separately.” Madhucon Projects Limited

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation. Further, we make it clear that once the income of the assessee is estimated there cannot by an further addition on any account under the head 'income from business' as held by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vishal Infrastructure Ltd., (104 ITD 537) (Hyd). However, income from other heads would be computed separately.” Madhucon Projects Limited

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

depreciation. Further, we make it clear that once the income of the assessee is estimated there cannot by an further addition on any account under the head 'income from business' as held by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vishal Infrastructure Ltd., (104 ITD 537) (Hyd). However, income from other heads would be computed separately.” Madhucon Projects Limited

KISAN,NIZAMABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 32 of the Act, the term ‘ownership’ must be assigned a wider meaning. A person, who, is in possession of property and uses the assets for his business can be regarded as owner for claiming depreciation. Further, the word ‘owner’ should not necessarily confined to title ownership, but the beneficial ownership and possession are sufficient. Thus, beneficial ownership

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

350/- under the normal provisions and admitted an income of Rs.336,89,42,640/- as per the provisions of section 115JB. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 21-02-2020. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

350/- under the normal provisions and admitted an income of Rs.336,89,42,640/- as per the provisions of section 115JB. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 21-02-2020. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

350/- under the normal provisions and admitted an income of Rs.336,89,42,640/- as per the provisions of section 115JB. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 21-02-2020. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

350/- under the normal provisions and admitted an income of Rs.336,89,42,640/- as per the provisions of section 115JB. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 21-02-2020. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. 6. As regards ground No. 1, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on the leasehold premises to make it fit for its working is revenue

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. 6. As regards ground No. 1, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on the leasehold premises to make it fit for its working is revenue

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

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

depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. 6. As regards ground No. 1, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on the leasehold premises to make it fit for its working is revenue

SAI LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Sai Life Sciences Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs6143F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Cit(Dr)

350 ITR 527, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that the lessor is the real owner of the asset and not the lessee and thereby the lessor is eligible to claim depreciation on the leased assets. He submitted that since the assessee in the instant case is a lessee therefore, the right