SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 14A of the Act, while allowing the claim of the assessee on account of depreciation on non-compete fees and depreciation on royalty amounting to Rs.3,74,68

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 of Rs. 271,70,42,063/- (Rs. 6,33,98,10,083/- Rs. 362,27,68,020/-) is disallowed and added back to the income returned. Addition: Rs. 271,70,42,063/- 13 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. 7. The CIT-DR submitted that the scope and ambit of Section

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

depreciation. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the current liability in terms of sundry creditors was increased to Rs.82,40,35,474/- when compared to previous year sundry creditors balance of Rs.37,646/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file relevant evidence and also to justify the increase in sundry creditors

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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

68, 891/-in a period of 15 years. 38. Coming to Smt. Y Pushpalata, her investment was Rs.5 Lacs through banking channels and Rs.31 Lacs in cash, but according to her in her statement the entire amount of Rs.36 Lacs was invested in cash out of the agricultural income from 10.28 acres of land with the income from agriculture

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

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

68, 891/-in a period of 15 years. 38. Coming to Smt. Y Pushpalata, her investment was Rs.5 Lacs through banking channels and Rs.31 Lacs in cash, but according to her in her statement the entire amount of Rs.36 Lacs was invested in cash out of the agricultural income from 10.28 acres of land with the income from agriculture

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

68 and Section 69C of the Act to tax under Section 115BBE, enhancing the demand substantially. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of depreciation

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

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

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), depreciation on any asset is allowable, when it is actually put to use. Since the assessee company did not put to use, the asset in the business, it is not eligible for depreciation, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as to why the depreciation cannot be disallowed. Similarly

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

section 2348 and 234D of the Act. The aforesaid grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal contained herein as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of the appeals. The Appellant prays that directions be given

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

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

depreciation:\nRs. 3,11,24,473/-; (iii) disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the\nAct: Rs. 32,89,736/-; (iv) disallowance of interest on delayed\nremittance of TDS: Rs.1,37,887/-; and (v) addition of unexplained\ncash deposits u/s 68

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?\"\n\n3. \"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and\nin law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the\ndirections of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of\nTV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against\ndepreciation granted by AO treating

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?\"\n3. \"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and\nin law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the\ndirections of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of\nTV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against\ndepreciation 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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and are eligible for depreciation @ 25%. 4.1. The ld.AR had also submitted that the above said judgments relied upon by the ld.DR are distinguishable and he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The ld.AR had filed the additional submissions which are to the following effect : “3. In this connection

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?\"\n\n3. \"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and\nin law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the\ndirections of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of\nTV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against\ndepreciation granted by AO treating

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?\"\n3. \"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and\nin law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the\ndirections of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of\nTV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against\ndepreciation granted by AO treating