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

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

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

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

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

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

ALPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

65,013/- (i). The assessee company states that the subject amount relates to the excess provision that was made in the earlier years, which, having been debited to its “Profit & loss account” had in the said preceding years gone to reduce its income that was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. It is claimed that as the excess

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

65 to 76 35 to 46 of PB) The Assessee submits that the deduction computed u/s. 80-IA of the Act should be allowed in totality from the GTI and should not to be restricted ONLY to Income from Business or Profession. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the following decisions at the time of hearing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

65 to 76 35 to 46 of PB) The Assessee submits that the deduction computed u/s. 80-IA of the Act should be allowed in totality from the GTI and should not to be restricted ONLY to Income from Business or Profession. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the following decisions at the time of hearing

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

65 ITR 261) (Bom) b) Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratisthan v. DCIT for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 1592 and 1616/PN/11 dated 14.12.2012. c) Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT (108 ITR 73) (Madras) d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp

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

65 ITR 261) (Bom) b) Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratisthan v. DCIT for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 1592 and 1616/PN/11 dated 14.12.2012. c) Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT (108 ITR 73) (Madras) d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp

GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

65 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds and alternate grounds in its appeal. However, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition

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.

65,09,730 Ciment Francais SA Payables 5,32,56,697 Itlacementi Fabbriche Payables 51,45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with

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.

65,09,730 Ciment Francais SA Payables 5,32,56,697 Itlacementi Fabbriche Payables 51,45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with

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.

65,09,730 Ciment Francais SA Payables 5,32,56,697 Itlacementi Fabbriche Payables 51,45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with

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.

65,09,730 Ciment Francais SA Payables 5,32,56,697 Itlacementi Fabbriche Payables 51,45,697 Riunite Cemento SpA 19. A closer look of the international transactions mentioned by the TPO in Para 4 of the respective order u/s 92CA(3) clearly shows that the transactions for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are similar with