DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ii) “venture capital company", "venture capital fund" and\n"venture capital undertaking shall have the same\nmeaning assigned to them in clause (b) of Explanation\nto clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56.\nIllustration: If a venture capital undertaking receives a\nconsideration of fifty thousand rupees from a venture capital\ncompany for issue of one hundred shares

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

ii) “venture capital company", "venture capital fund" and\n"venture capital undertaking shall have the same\nmeaning assigned to them in clause (b) of Explanation\nto clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56.\nIllustration: If a venture capital undertaking receives a\nconsideration of fifty thousand rupees from a venture capital\ncompany for issue of one hundred shares

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ii) “venture capital company", "venture capital fund" and\n"venture capital undertaking shall have the same\nmeaning assigned to them in clause (b) of Explanation\nto clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56.\nIllustration: If a venture capital undertaking receives a\nconsideration of fifty thousand rupees from a venture capital\ncompany for issue of one hundred shares

N JAIVEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

2 27. A perusal of the above shows that the shares are to be valued as per the provisions contained in Rule 11UA of the I.T. Rules, 1961 in accordance with the explanation which read as under: “Determination of fair market value. 11UA. [(1)] For the purposes of section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property

K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

2 27. A perusal of the above shows that the shares are to be valued as per the provisions contained in Rule 11UA of the I.T. Rules, 1961 in accordance with the explanation which read as under: “Determination of fair market value. 11UA. [(1)] For the purposes of section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property

K LAXMA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

2 27. A perusal of the above shows that the shares are to be valued as per the provisions contained in Rule 11UA of the I.T. Rules, 1961 in accordance with the explanation which read as under: “Determination of fair market value. 11UA. [(1)] For the purposes of section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

2 27. A perusal of the above shows that the shares are to be valued as per the provisions contained in Rule 11UA of the I.T. Rules, 1961 in accordance with the explanation which read as under: “Determination of fair market value. 11UA. [(1)] For the purposes of section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property

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

depreciation from an eligible unit were set off against other income in previous years, they should not be reopened or notionally carried forward again to reduce the Section 801A deduction in the chosen initial assessment year. We find that the “SLP” filed by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court had been dismissed

PATHFINDER PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely. (a). the fair market value of unquoted equity shares shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

56 ITA.Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And ITA.Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in directing the AO to allow the depreciation on non-compete fee as the non-compete fee is not an asset as it has no market value

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

56 along with return income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act or before compilation of assessment proceeding u/s. 143(1). The provisions of Sec. 10AA of the Act, deals with deduction towards total income of newly established units in Special Economic Zones. As per sub-section 8 of 10AA of the Act, the provisions

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

56,78,75,869 in the revised ROI filed by\nVITP for the subject AY without taking into cognizance of the reconciliation statement\nfurnished by the Company during the course of revision proceedings.\n9.2\nThe learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts by holding that there is an excess claim of\ndepreciation to the extent

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

sections\n391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 was approved by\nHon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide their Order\ndated 15.12.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010. The Telugu\nTV channels namely \"ETV Telugu\" and \"ETV 2\" clubbed\ntogether and transferred to M/s. Eenadu Television Private\nLimited. The assessee-company has filed its return of\nincome for the impugned assessment

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

sections\n5\nITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And\nITA. Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024\n391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 was approved by\nHon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide their Order\ndated 15.12.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010. The Telugu\nTV channels namely \"ETV Telugu\" and \"ETV 2\" clubbed\ntogether and transferred to M/s. Eenadu Television Private\nLimited. The assessee-company

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

sections\n5\nITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And\nITA. Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024\n391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 was approved by\nHon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide their Order\ndated 15.12.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010. The Telugu\nTV channels namely \"ETV Telugu\" and \"ETV 2\" clubbed\ntogether and transferred to M/s. Eenadu Television Private\nLimited. The assessee-company

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

sections\n\n5\nITA. Nos.654, 665/Hyd./2023 And\nITA. Nos.563 & 648/Hyd./2024\n391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956 was approved by\nHon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide their Order\ndated 15.12.2010 with effect from 01.04.2010. The Telugu\nTV channels namely \"ETV Telugu\" and \"ETV 2\" clubbed\ntogether and transferred to M/s. Eenadu Television Private\nLimited. The assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCL GREEN HABITATS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) valuation of jewellery,— (i) the fair market value of jewellery shall be estimated to be the price which such jewellery would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date; (ii) in case

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

ii) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of N. Krishnammal vs. CIT (cited supra) with similar facts as in the case before us, has held as under. “A reading of section 32(2) would indicate that if full effect for depreciation provided under section 32(1) cannot be given ITA No.1119/Hyd./2018 A.Y.: 2013-14 Sh. Yerram

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

ii) cannot be extended to power generation companies. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the assessee, which were rendered in the context of 32(1)(iia) cannot be applied to provisions of section 32AC and accordingly, the claim of investment allowance claimed by the assessee at Rs.358,44,95.502 is disallowed and added to the income returned. 7.00 Investment