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

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding

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

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

depreciation under Section 32(ia), without revising the\nopening WDV of plant and machinery on account of the amount of\ndepreciation disallowed in the previous year.\nInvestment allowance under Section 32AD\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO,\nunder the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating\nthat

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

69\n(SC).\n9.6\nThe learned PCIT has erred in facts and in law on not appreciating the facts and explanations\nfurnished by the Company with respect to the impugned excess claim of depreciation and\ndeduction under Section

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

69,986/-\n15. For the A.Y 2016-17 the Assessing Officer apart from\ndisallowing the claim as not falling in the ambit of section 32AC of\nthe Act also rejected the claim on the ground that the plant &\nmachinery was not installed during the period 1/4/2014 to\n31/03/2016. The relevant part of the finding of the Assessing\nOfficer in para

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

69,986/-\n15. For the A.Y 2016-17 the Assessing Officer apart from\ndisallowing the claim as not falling in the ambit of section 32AC of\nthe Act also rejected the claim on the ground that the plant &\nmachinery was not installed during the period 1/4/2014 to\n31/03/2016. The relevant part of the finding of the Assessing\nOfficer in para

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVAT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the WDV as determined for the year. 9.2 The ld. DR filed written submissions which are as under: 1. The assessee is a Spy formed for carrying out construction, development, finance and operation and development of 4/6 lanning of Thrissur(Km 270.00) and Angamali(KM 316.700) and also for improvement, operation

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SOUTH ASIAN CERAMIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 69. 6. Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds. which may be necessary.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of ceramic tiles had filed its return of income for AY 2022-23 on 26/10/2022 declaring a loss of (Rs.18,74,49,155/-). Thereafter

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

69,63,187/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2018 declaring total income under the normal provisions at Rs.Nil and book profit of Rs.53,48,03,873/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment order under section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

69,245/- has been disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of depreciation on machinery and argued that when no incriminating material

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

69,245/- has been disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of depreciation on machinery and argued that when no incriminating material

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

depreciation of INR 3,11,24,473 under section(u/s) 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) , without proper verification of the relevant records and supporting documents. 4. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of INR 25,85,800 made by the Ld.AO u/s 69

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 of INR 3,11,24,473 under section(u/s)\n37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without proper\nverification of the relevant records and supporting documents.\n,\n4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of INR\n25,85,800 made by the Ld.AO u/s 69

ARUTLA CHARAN REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1347/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Arutla Charan Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15 (1) Pan:Akqpr4282B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sankar Pandi P Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

depreciation through ground no. 4, therefore, ground no. 4 is decided against the appellant. 8.7 The appellant has claimed that deduction of Rs.18,52,037/- u/s 80JJA of the Act and the AO has denied the deduction u/s 80JJA of the Act. The appellant could not establish the date of installation and date of put into use of capital assets