INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

57(iii) of the Act. In our opinion, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) on identical set of facts has answered a similar question against the assessee. Therefore, the interest received by the assessee on temporary deposit of funds which are not required immediately has to be assessed as 'Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

57(iii) of the Act. In our opinion, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) on identical set of facts has answered a similar question against the assessee. Therefore, the interest received by the assessee on temporary deposit of funds which are not required immediately has to be assessed as 'Income

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.

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) has, therefore, been rightly granted to the assessee by the concurrent judgments of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. 11. We also note that, w.e.f. from 01.04.2013, the provision has been amended by the Finance Act, 2012 and assessees engaged in the generation of power have expressly been included in the ambit thereof

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

section 119 of the Act hereby clarified that the cost of construction on development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT projects may be amortized and claimed as allowable expenditure under the Act. 6. The amortization allowable may be computed at the rate which ensures that the whole of the cost incurred in creation of infrastructural facility of road/highway

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?" 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the directions of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against depreciation granted by AO treating

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

depreciation claimed on Film Software Library. The Assessing Officer while computing the tax payable granted 5. credit for TDS of Rs.6,57,25,703/- against Rs.6,76,21,038/- claimed by the Appellant and did not even state anything as to why credit is not given for the difference. In this regard, Appellant submits that it had claimed credit

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation 2.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/DRP have erred in denying the depreciation claimed by the Assessee on the following grounds: 2.1.1. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not granting depreciation on building under section

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is 'for the purpose of making or earning such income'. Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression 'in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.' The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

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 :

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is for the purpose of making or earning such income'. Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression 'in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.' The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

57(iii) of the Act, where the\nexpression used is 'for the purpose of making or earning such income'. Section\n14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression 'in relation to income\nwhich does not form part of the total income.' The decision in Rajendra Prasad\nMoody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

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

section 32(1) and, thus, it is eligible for depreciation. He submitted that in this case, during relevant assessment year, one ‘Y’ Ltd. amalgamated with assessee- 5 ITA 1390/Hyd/2019 company. According to assessee, excess consideration paid by it over value of net assets acquired of ‘Y’ ltd amounted to goodwill on which depreciation was to be allowed. The Authorities below

MYLAN LABORATOREIS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

57, 63, 26, 317/-under section 115 JB of the Act. Since the assessee entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs), reference was made to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and pursuant to his order dated 30/10/2018, a draft assessment order was passed on 31/12/2018 making several adjustments/additions including the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation 2.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/DRP have erred in denying the depreciation claimed by the Assessee on the following grounds: 2.1.1. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not granting depreciation on building under section

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation 2.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/DRP have erred in denying the depreciation claimed by the Assessee on the following grounds: 2.1.1. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not granting depreciation on building under section

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAHARI HOLIDAY HOMES (P) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, in terms of our above observation

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.600/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Lahari Holiday Homes Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Vs. (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacl8925C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri J J Varun, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

57,73,902/-, holding that ITA No.600/Hyd/2025 3 section 115BAA(2) read with Circular No.29/2019 bars such set-off. Accordingly, the Ld. AO assessed income at Rs.11,96,79,556/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20.02.2025, allowed the assessee’s appeal

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

section 28 to 43. The assessee has not clarified under which provision this deduction is being claimed. It cannot be denied that it is not an expenditure incurred for the carrying out of the business and it is only an obligation on the part of the assesssee to be paid to the government just like the tax paid

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

57,30, 020/-. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of assessee u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act by observing that the assessee is not an infrastructure facility but only a manufacturer of a specialized product Pozzocrete for which fly ash. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

57,30, 020/-. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of assessee u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act by observing that the assessee is not an infrastructure facility but only a manufacturer of a specialized product Pozzocrete for which fly ash. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze