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

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 of INR 35,30,75,403 under section 32 of the Act in respect of goodwill arising on amalgamation and recognized in the books as per the Hon'ble NCLT order sanctioning the amalgamation. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing INR 42.97.430 under section

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 80IB and 80HHC of the Act." 6. With respect to the claim of depreciation, the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply. There is no material referred to by the Assessing Officer to hold that the claim of depreciation was fictitious. If we read his entire expression in this respect, he seems

VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.737/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakfv3288R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.881/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V K Warehousing Enterprises, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri P. Dhivahar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026

Section 69C ITA Nos.737 & 881/Hyd/2025 4 of the Act: Rs. 34,58,38,297/-; (ii) disallowance of depreciation: Rs. 3,11,24,473/-; (iii) disallowance

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. VK WAREHOUSING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm and

Section 69C of the Act: Rs. 34,58,38,297/-; (ii) disallowance of depreciation: Rs. 3,11,24,473/-; (iii) disallowance

ANDHRA PRADESH GRANITE MIDWEST PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17 Andhra Pradesh Granite Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1) (Midwest) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aagca3570N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M.V. Joshi, Adv. Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 Order Per Bench This Assessee’S Appeal Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–1 [‘Cit(A)’ For Short], Hyderabad’S Order Dated 25.04.2019 In Case No. 10243/2018-19/Dcit, Cir.1(1)/Hyd/Cit(A)-1/Hyd/2019-20 For A.Y. 2016-17 Passed In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ ‘The Act’ For Short].

section 32 (1 )(ii) and eligible for additional depreciation u/ s. 32 (1 )(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the additions made which are put to use for less than 180 days, 50% of such depreciation would be allowed in the succeeding Asst Year. The appellant further submits that it is eligible for additional depreciation u/ s.32

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

58,252/- in the return filed which was later revised to Rs. 8,92,02,230/vide application dated 06.02.2013. As the delay from 01.04.2009 to 21/02/2013 in claiming credit of additional amount of TDS (Rs. 5,35,43,978/-) is attributable to the assessee, Assessing Officer granted interest u/s. 244A on the additional amount of TDS from 21.02.2013 onwards only

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

58,252/- in the return filed which was later revised to Rs. 8,92,02,230/vide application dated 06.02.2013. As the delay from 01.04.2009 to 21/02/2013 in claiming credit of additional amount of TDS (Rs. 5,35,43,978/-) is attributable to the assessee, Assessing Officer granted interest u/s. 244A on the additional amount of TDS from 21.02.2013 onwards only

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

58,252/- in the return filed which was later revised to Rs. 8,92,02,230/vide application dated 06.02.2013. As the delay from 01.04.2009 to 21/02/2013 in claiming credit of additional amount of TDS (Rs. 5,35,43,978/-) is attributable to the assessee, Assessing Officer granted interest u/s. 244A on the additional amount of TDS from 21.02.2013 onwards only

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 allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned(hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessmen t year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section(3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 132(4) of the Act and thus, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.50 lakhs towards donation from undisclosed income. 58. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition. 59. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition towards donation from

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the subsequent year. b) Objection No. 1.30: Claim of provision for site restoration fund. c) Objection No. 1.31: Claim for prevision for obsolescence of spares. d) Objection No. 1.32 : Claim for Community development expenses e) Objection No. 1.33 : Claim for giveaways f) Objection No. 1.34 : Claim towards

NEOVANTAGE BIO-TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation pertaining to the demerged undertakings that are legally transferable, and allow the assessee’s claim in accordance with the provisions of section 72A of the Act. ITA Nos.923 & 924/Hyd/2024 44 21.2 In view of the above discussion, ground no.8 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with the directions

NEOVANTAGE INNOVATION PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation pertaining to the demerged undertakings that are legally transferable, and allow the assessee’s claim in accordance with the provisions of section 72A of the Act. ITA Nos.923 & 924/Hyd/2024 44 21.2 In view of the above discussion, ground no.8 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with the directions

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level