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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

sections 5 ITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA. Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 was approved by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide their Order dated 15.12.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010. The Telugu TV channels namely "ETV Telugu" and "ETV 2" clubbed together and transferred to M/s. Eenadu Television Private Limited. The assessee-company

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

sections 5 ITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA. Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 was approved by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide their Order dated 15.12.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010. The Telugu TV channels namely "ETV Telugu" and "ETV 2" clubbed together and transferred to M/s. Eenadu Television Private Limited. The assessee-company

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

sections 5 ITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA. Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 was approved by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide their Order dated 15.12.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010. The Telugu TV channels namely "ETV Telugu" and "ETV 2" clubbed together and transferred to M/s. Eenadu Television Private Limited. The assessee-company

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

sections 391 and 394, the said sanction relates back to the date on which the scheme was to come into operation as provided in the scheme. In the present case, the sanction granted to the scheme specifically provide the date 1-4- 1993 as an appointed date and, thus, the said scheme would be effective and in operation from

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ABIR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafc3608N (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation was not admissible since the assessee had no manufacturing activity during the year, the Tribunal found that the matter had been examined during the assessment stage and that there was no fresh information to justify a different inference and notice under Section 148. Though action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that

SITAPURAM POWER LIMITED-ERSTWHILE AMALGAMATING COMPANY (NOW AMALGAMATED COMPANY-ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED),KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

394 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, Section 2 (1A) and various other provisions of the Income Tax Act, is that despite amalgamation, the business, enterprise and undertaking of the transferee or amalgamated company- which ceases to exist, after amalgamation, is treated 1988 (1) SCR 1088 [2004] Supp (3) SCR 535 as a continuing one, and any benefits

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

depreciation was not admissible since the assessee had no manufacturing activity during the year, the Tribunal found that the 14 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. matter had been examined during the assessment stage and that there was no fresh information to justify a different inference and notice under Section 148. Though action was initiated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

depreciation was not admissible since the assessee had no manufacturing activity during the year, the Tribunal found that the 14 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. matter had been examined during the assessment stage and that there was no fresh information to justify a different inference and notice under Section 148. Though action was initiated

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

depreciation was not admissible since the assessee had no manufacturing activity during the year, the Tribunal found that the matter had been examined during the assessment stage and that there was no fresh information to justify a different inference and notice under Section 148. Though action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that

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

depreciation was not admissible since the assessee had no manufacturing activity during the year, the Tribunal found that the matter had been examined during the assessment stage and that there was no fresh information to justify a different inference and notice under Section 148. Though action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that

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

depreciation was not admissible since the assessee had no manufacturing activity during the year, the Tribunal found that the matter had been examined during the assessment stage and that there was no fresh information to justify a different inference and notice under Section 148. Though action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that

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

depreciation was not admissible since the assessee had no manufacturing activity during the year, the Tribunal found that the matter had been examined during the assessment stage and that there was no fresh information to justify a different inference and notice under Section 148. Though action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that

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

394] (Del) to submit that explanation 1 and 2 would apply and production of account books or other evidence from which the AO could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the documents on record as well as case

ITO, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. TINI PHARMA LTD., HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Tini Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaact 7976K

depreciation thereon is not a benefit or perquisite taxable u/s 28(iv) of the Act." 6. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the loan amount is only capital account and hence cannot be brought to tax as trading receipt. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation on buildings, security charges and municipal taxes to buildings etc., which are allowable expenses under the head ‘Income from business’ and that the same was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the contentions of assessee and held that the assessee’s main intention is to commercially exploit its properties by letting them

CACHE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

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

depreciation on buildings, security charges and municipal taxes to buildings etc., which are allowable expenses under the head ‘Income from business’ and that the same was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the contentions of assessee and held that the assessee’s main intention is to commercially exploit its properties by letting them

YELLAIAH SETTY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Yellaiah Setty, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 5, Pan – Agqps 2236 Q Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Smt. S. Narasamma Date Of Hearing: 31/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

depreciation. Even in the assessments u/s 153A, AO has made additions on the basis of the material already on record. In the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the Hon'ble Courts have ruled as under:- i) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd reported

OPEN TEXT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

section 271AA and 271BA of the Act." 3. The assessee has raised the additional grounds as under : “10(c)(a). Choice of CUP as MAM in present case is unjustified. Without prejudice, application of CUP is not in compliance with provisions of Income Tax Act and Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 4. The additional ground so filed is admissible in view