COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation, which is a statutory imperative as per Explanation 5 to section 32 of the Act and allowed irrespective whether it was specifically claimed by the Assessee in the return of income. c. The Ld. CIT has erred in applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman

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

section 43(6) of Act. Hence, the VITP\nPvt. Ltd. claimed excess WDV of Rs.56, 78, 75,869/- which needs to be\ndisallowed. This excess WDV resuted in excess claim of depreciation of\nRs.3,37

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEXT EDUCATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

depreciation loss of Rs.13,69,49,466/-. The case was selected for manual scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dt.14-07-2017 was issued and duly served on the assessee-company. Later on, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dt.03-11-2018, 14-11-2018 and 30-11-2018, 08-12-2018 and 15- 12-2018 were issued in e-proceedings

OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section 32. Therefore, the Parliament has used the expression 'any expenditure in section 37

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

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

37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent of fifty percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 37 of the Act and accordingly, we do not find any reason to accept the contention of the assessee and therefore, the contention of the assessee is required to be dismissed. 15 Allcargo Gati Limited 18. The reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd (supra) and also

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 37 of the Act and accordingly, we do not find any reason to accept the contention of the assessee and therefore, the contention of the assessee is required to be dismissed. 15 Allcargo Gati Limited 18. The reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd (supra) and also

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

37, ought not to have disallowed Rs.\n37,79,77,452/- under section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer disallowed\ninvestment allowance under section 32AC of Rs.240,00,69,986/- on assumption that\nelectricity is not an article or thing and also ignored

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

37 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Page 38 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd 31. It was submitted that since the issue has attained finality upto the level of the Tribunal for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2007-08 and the relief

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

37 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Page 38 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd 31. It was submitted that since the issue has attained finality upto the level of the Tribunal for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2007-08 and the relief

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

37 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Page 38 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd 31. It was submitted that since the issue has attained finality upto the level of the Tribunal for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2007-08 and the relief

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

37 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Page 38 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd 31. It was submitted that since the issue has attained finality upto the level of the Tribunal for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2007-08 and the relief

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

37 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Page 38 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd 31. It was submitted that since the issue has attained finality upto the level of the Tribunal for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2007-08 and the relief

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

37 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Page 38 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd 31. It was submitted that since the issue has attained finality upto the level of the Tribunal for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2007-08 and the relief

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

37 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd Page 38 of 65 ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd 31. It was submitted that since the issue has attained finality upto the level of the Tribunal for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2007-08 and the relief

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 does not hold good in law (as otherwise by nature all intangible assets do appreciate on a year on year basis for example trade- mark, franchise, etc). Expenditure incurred for construction/development of toll road is a capital expenditure and is outside the scope of section 37

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 does not hold good in law (as otherwise by nature all intangible assets do appreciate on a year on year basis for example trade- mark, franchise, etc). Expenditure incurred for construction/development of toll road is a capital expenditure and is outside the scope of section 37