MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

79,935/-. Initially, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, on selection for scrutiny under CASS, notices were issued u/s 143(2) and Page 1 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 142(1) and duly served on the assessee company. In response to the said notices

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

79,935/-. Initially, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, on selection for scrutiny under CASS, notices were issued u/s 143(2) and Page 1 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 142(1) and duly served on the assessee company. In response to the said notices

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

79,935/-. Initially, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, on selection for scrutiny under CASS, notices were issued u/s 143(2) and Page 1 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 142(1) and duly served on the assessee company. In response to the said notices

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an "Intangible Asset" as defined under section

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section

TELANGANA STATE POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17 Telangana State Power Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Generation Corporation Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafct 0257Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 /06/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 2, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 21/08/2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

depreciation allowance to the power generating companies until an amendment to include power generating companies for grant of concession was brought out by Finance Act. 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013. was a narrow interpretation of the provisions of section 32(l)(iia) and has no justification and lacks any judicial authority support, The Hon'ble ITAT has referred to number of decisions

NATUROL BIOCHEMICALS AND FOODS LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS KALEESUWARI REFINERY AND INDUSTRY PVT LTD ),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Natural Biochemicals & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Foods Ltd. (Now Known As Income-Tax, Kaleesuwari Refinery & Circle – 16(1), Industry Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcn 7337H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Psrvv Surya Rao Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 27/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021

79 (Ahd – ITAT 3. CIT Vs. Yamaha Motor India (P) Ltd. [2009] 183 Taxman 291 (Delhi – HC) 4. CIT Vs. Integrated Technologies Ltd. [2011] ITA No. 530/2011 (Delhi – HC) 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, besides relying on the orders of revenue authorities, submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee has not done any business activity

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

79,15,242/- and on which the appellant company has claimed depreciation @ 25% applicable to an “Intangible Asset” as defined under section

VASANT CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

79 taxmann.com 375 (SC)/[2017] 247 Taxman 12 (SC)/[2017] 392 ITR 628 (SC) /[2017] 294 CTR 25 (SC) held that since the assessee (lessee) had not become the owner of the immovable property in question, depreciation could not be allowed to the taxpayer as per section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation claimed The High Court following the decision of 179) (Kar HC) 25 on software imported for in earlier bench decided the question of law in March 2015. house utilisation and treated favour of the Assessee. as part of block of assets However, the dispute in Appellant’s case is should be allowed, despite not on whether the payment made

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

section 72A of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w.s 79 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR submitted that the appellant has filed all the details with respect to brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Ascend Telecom Income Tax, Central Circle Infrastructure (P) Ltd 3(2), Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.539/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ascend Telecom Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Infrastructure (P) Ltd Income Tax, Central Secunderabad Circle 3(2), Hyderabad Pan:Aaefa2381H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T Vijayalakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Both The Assessee As Well As The Revenue For The A.Y 2010-11 Against The Common Order Dated 31/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A) 11 Hyderabad.

section 72A of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w.s 79 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR submitted that the appellant has filed all the details with respect to brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

ROCKSALT INTERACTIVE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

depreciation of earlier years amounting to RS.72,53,049/-, which includes business loss pertaining to AY.2013-14 and AY.2014-15 for Rs.22,79,265/- and Rs.3,08,067/- respectively. However, the assessee is not entitled for adjustment of brought forward of losses pertaining to the Asst. year 2013-14 and AY.2014-15 since the assessee filed the returns of income for the Asst

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

depreciation as per IT (-) 21,79,457.00 Rules :- 15 -: C.O.No.28/Hyd/2019 (A) Loss from business (-)24,25,58,961.67 (B) Income from other (+)24,46,08,972.00 sources (as per AO) (C) Total income after set 20,50,010.33 off (B-A) Income as per Return Rs.20,50,000 Income as per Assessment Order Rs.24,48,84,402 19.5 From