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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

69 (SC). 9.6 The learned PCIT has erred in facts and in law on not appreciating the facts and explanations furnished by the Company with respect to the impugned excess claim of depreciation and deduction 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

ITO, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PADMA VAMSI TEXTILE MARKET PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Padma Vamsi Textile Market Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aadcp 3957F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Komali Krishna Assessee By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Murthy Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-05-2019

depreciation on the same. The AO, therefore, opined that the income on sale of such assets attract the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 69

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

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

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

M/S SERVOMAX INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Servomax India Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad Tax, Circle 3(1) Pan: Aafcs 0247 R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation thereon. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV, in so far as it is against the appellant-company, is contrary

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

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

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

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

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