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

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(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire revenue expenditure debited in the P & L A/c and has allowed 25% of depreciation on the said expenditure and balance amount of Rs.106,95,46

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 on ‘goodwill’ accounted on account of amalgamation. The Assessing Officer and DRP after considering the relevant facts, has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the Directions of the DRP / Order of Assessing Officer and reject the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue. 21. The next issue that came

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act preceding the term \"business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature\" it is seen that\nintangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly\ndistinct from one another. The legislature thus did not\nintend to provide for depreciation only in respect of the\nspecified intangible assets but also to other categories

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation on investments by considering earlier years opening stock and closing balances. ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 4 5.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the investments of the appellant bank are stock in trade and the appellant bank is eligible to claim the loss arising out of the valuation of the stock at cost

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

section 194A and other provisions of the\nAct. In paragraph 2 of that D.O. letter, it was stated that\nwhile paying interest, income-tax was deductible at the\nrates in force during that financial year with effect from 1-4-\n1975, if the amount exceeded Rs.1,000.\nPursuant to those instructions, the Land Acquisition\nOfficers, while depositing the enhanced compensation

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

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

section 194A and other provisions of the\nAct. In paragraph 2 of that D.O. letter, it was stated that\nwhile paying interest, income-tax was deductible at the\nrates in force during that financial year with effect from 1-4-\n1975, if the amount exceeded Rs.1,000.\nPursuant to those instructions, the Land Acquisition\nOfficers, while depositing the enhanced compensation

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

46,381/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s 143(3l of the Act on 04.03.2016 by disallowing provision for periodic maintenance amounting to Rs.7,32 ,00,000/ - and disallowing excess depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss

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

46,381/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s 143(3l of the Act on 04.03.2016 by disallowing provision for periodic maintenance amounting to Rs.7,32 ,00,000/ - and disallowing excess depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss

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

46,381/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s 143(3l of the Act on 04.03.2016 by disallowing provision for periodic maintenance amounting to Rs.7,32 ,00,000/ - and disallowing excess depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss

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

46,381/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s 143(3l of the Act on 04.03.2016 by disallowing provision for periodic maintenance amounting to Rs.7,32 ,00,000/ - and disallowing excess depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss

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

46,381/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed u/s 143(3l of the Act on 04.03.2016 by disallowing provision for periodic maintenance amounting to Rs.7,32 ,00,000/ - and disallowing excess depreciation/ amortization claimed amounting to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Rs.135,77,84,054/- and thereby the AO determined a loss

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter