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

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 LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

65 taxmann.com 288 [2016] (Del.). 12.3 He also referred to 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act and submitted that it is the only mechanism of allocation of depreciation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

65 taxmann.com 288 [2016] (Del.). 12.3 He also referred to 6th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act and submitted that it is the only mechanism of allocation of depreciation

PATNA BAKHTIYARPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Vs. Acit Circle-16(2) Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Aafcp9577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ar Revenue By: Ms.K.Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 31.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

65,450/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation on the intangible asset amounting to Rs.162,48,67,242/-and has only restricted to the amortization of Rs.58,16,55,020/-. Relevant paragraphs of the order of the learned Assessing Officer are available at para 3 at page 4,5 and 6. The Ld.AR has submitted that the Ld.CIT

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

65,02,499 under provisions of section 2 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. 115JB. The Order u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was passed on 14.12.2010 and assessed the total income at Rs.12,73,91,732/- and raised a demand of Rs.52,34,417/-. 2.1 Later, certain discrepancies were observed

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

65,02,499 under provisions of section 2 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. 115JB. The Order u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was passed on 14.12.2010 and assessed the total income at Rs.12,73,91,732/- and raised a demand of Rs.52,34,417/-. 2.1 Later, certain discrepancies were observed

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

65,02,499 under provisions of section 2 I.T.A. Nos. 438 to 440/Hyd/2016 Ocean Sparkle Ltd., Hyd. 115JB. The Order u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was passed on 14.12.2010 and assessed the total income at Rs.12,73,91,732/- and raised a demand of Rs.52,34,417/-. 2.1 Later, certain discrepancies were observed

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)

section 115JB(2), the loss shall not include depreciation. Therefore, it is held by Assessing Officer that, the brought forward loss and unabsorbed deprecation as on 01.04.2003 shall be determined by adjusting the same with the incomes earned during the intervening years. Based on the details furnished by the assessee, it is observed by the Assessing Officer that

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)

section 115JB(2), the loss shall not include depreciation. Therefore, it is held by Assessing Officer that, the brought forward loss and unabsorbed deprecation as on 01.04.2003 shall be determined by adjusting the same with the incomes earned during the intervening years. Based on the details furnished by the assessee, it is observed by the Assessing Officer that

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)

section 115JB(2), the loss shall not include depreciation. Therefore, it is held by Assessing Officer that, the brought forward loss and unabsorbed deprecation as on 01.04.2003 shall be determined by adjusting the same with the incomes earned during the intervening years. Based on the details furnished by the assessee, it is observed by the Assessing Officer that

PREMIER POULTRY PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 30.03.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and law while passing disposing the appeal. 2. The learned Commissioner

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

65,620 2009-10 57,48,994 2010-11 47,64,850 2011-12 19,74,116 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department has filed appeals for allowing exemption u/s 10A to the extent of 70% instead of denying the entire exemption claimed by the assessee and the assessee filed appeals challenging the order

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

65,620 2009-10 57,48,994 2010-11 47,64,850 2011-12 19,74,116 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department has filed appeals for allowing exemption u/s 10A to the extent of 70% instead of denying the entire exemption claimed by the assessee and the assessee filed appeals challenging the order

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

65,620 2009-10 57,48,994 2010-11 47,64,850 2011-12 19,74,116 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department has filed appeals for allowing exemption u/s 10A to the extent of 70% instead of denying the entire exemption claimed by the assessee and the assessee filed appeals challenging the order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

65,620 2009-10 57,48,994 2010-11 47,64,850 2011-12 19,74,116 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department has filed appeals for allowing exemption u/s 10A to the extent of 70% instead of denying the entire exemption claimed by the assessee and the assessee filed appeals challenging the order

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

65,620 2009-10 57,48,994 2010-11 47,64,850 2011-12 19,74,116 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department has filed appeals for allowing exemption u/s 10A to the extent of 70% instead of denying the entire exemption claimed by the assessee and the assessee filed appeals challenging the order

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

65,620 2009-10 57,48,994 2010-11 47,64,850 2011-12 19,74,116 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department has filed appeals for allowing exemption u/s 10A to the extent of 70% instead of denying the entire exemption claimed by the assessee and the assessee filed appeals challenging the order