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

50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in Paras 11 and 12 had held as under : "11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the appellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is treated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they are depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of "know-how", "patents", "copyrights", "trademarks", "licenses", "franchises" or other

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962. 22. The assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,98,96,436/- as exempt income on account of dividend income received on investments in units of mutual funds. The assessee has made a suo motu disallowance of 43 ITA.No.111/Hyd./2022 expenditure relatable to exempt income of Rs.11

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

depreciation @ 10% and not " Plant & Machinery".\n(vi) Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.\n2. Ground Nos.1 to 4 for the A.Y 2015-16, 2016-17 and\n2020-21 of the assessee's appeals are common and involving the\nissue of disallowance of payment/grant made to Singareni\nEducational Society

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

50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in\nParas 11 and 12 had held as under :\n\"11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the\nappellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is\ntreated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they\nare depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of\n\"know-how\", \"patents\", \"copyrights\", \"trademarks\",\n\"licenses

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

50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in\nParas 11 and 12 had held as under :\n\"11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the\nappellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is\ntreated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they\nare depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of\n\"know-how\", \"patents\", \"copyrights\", \"trademarks\",\n\"licenses

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

50, wherein the Hon’ble High Court in Paras 11 and 12 had held as under : “11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the appellant’s alternative submission that if the expenditure is treated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they are depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of "know-how", "patents", "copyrights", "trademarks", "licenses", "franchises" or other

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

50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in\nParas 11 and 12 had held as under :\n\n"11.\nThis question arose as a direct sequel to the\nappellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is\ntreated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they\nare depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of\n\"know-how\", \"patents\", \"copyrights\", \"trademarks

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

50, wherein the Hon'ble High Court in\nParas 11 and 12 had held as under :\n\"11. This question arose as a direct sequel to the\nappellant's alternative submission that if the expenditure is\ntreated as a conferring capital advantage, necessarily they\nare depreciable. The appellant claims for depreciation of\n\"know-how\", \"patents\", \"copyrights\", \"trademarks\",\n\"licenses

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

depreciation @ 10% and not \" Plant & Machinery\".\nAny other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.\n2. Ground Nos.1 to 4 for the A.Y 2015-16, 2016-17 and\n2020-21 of the assessee's appeals are common and involving the\nissue of disallowance of payment/grant made to Singareni\nEducational Society

DIWAKAR ROAD LINES,ANANTAPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; that therefore, in the absence of the same, the assessee is not eligible for full depreciation, but depreciation @ 50

DIWAKAR ROAD LINES,ANANTAHAPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; that therefore, in the absence of the same, the assessee is not eligible for full depreciation, but depreciation @ 50

DIWAKAR ROAD LINES,ANANTAPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; that therefore, in the absence of the same, the assessee is not eligible for full depreciation, but depreciation @ 50

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:

50 ITR 583(Trib.) Kolkata ii) Vedanta Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No.12/Del/2020 iii) Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation vs. ACIT in ITA No.1424/Hyd/2019 dated 14/06/2021. 11. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the assessee is entitled for the investment allowance u/s 32AC

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:

50 ITR 583(Trib.) Kolkata ii) Vedanta Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No.12/Del/2020 iii) Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation vs. ACIT in ITA No.1424/Hyd/2019 dated 14/06/2021. 11. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the assessee is entitled for the investment allowance u/s 32AC

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:

50 ITR 583(Trib.) Kolkata ii) Vedanta Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No.12/Del/2020 iii) Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation vs. ACIT in ITA No.1424/Hyd/2019 dated 14/06/2021. 11. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the assessee is entitled for the investment allowance u/s 32AC

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD, 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:

50 ITR 583(Trib.) Kolkata ii) Vedanta Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No.12/Del/2020 iii) Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation vs. ACIT in ITA No.1424/Hyd/2019 dated 14/06/2021. 11. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the assessee is entitled for the investment allowance u/s 32AC

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL, WARANGAL vs. NORTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF TELANGANA LIMITED, WARANGAL, WARANGAL

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation on the assets created out of utilization of consumer contributions was claimed and allowed in the P&L A/c and the amortization claim in the computation of income amounts to double deduction. 6. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground seeking

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

50 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/779/2017 ORDER did they travel beyond the materials already on record, in order to examine the claims of the assessees for deductions under section 80IB and 80HHC of the Act." 6. With respect to the claim of depreciation