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

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

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

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

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which provisions

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

80A(1) provides that in computing total income of the assessee, there shall be allowed from the gross total income the deductions specified in sections 80-C to 80-U. Sub-section (2) further provides that the aggregate amount of deductions under this Chapter shall not in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee. The gross total

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

depreciation should be carry forward u/s.32(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, on that point also the assessing officer is not justified to ignore the same. " :- 8 -: ITA Nos. 1105 & 1106/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders, Sec’bad. 9. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of loss made by the AO by observing as under

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

depreciation should be carry forward u/s.32(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, on that point also the assessing officer is not justified to ignore the same. " :- 8 -: ITA Nos. 1105 & 1106/Hyd/2018 Amsri Builders, Sec’bad. 9. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of loss made by the AO by observing as under

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

80A(1) provides that in computing total income of the assessee, there shall be allowed from the gross total income the deductions specified in sections 80-C to 80-U. Sub-section (2) further provides that the aggregate amount of deductions under this Chapter shall not in any case exceed the gross total income of the assessee. The gross total

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.

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act and consequently under-statement of taxable income by the Company for the subject AY as contested by your goodself in the aforesaid notice issued under Section 263 of the Act for the subject AY. Accordingly, the revision proceedings initiated by your goodself due to the aforesaid issue

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)

depreciation can never be deemed as actually allowed to the subsidiary. Accordingly, the assessee subsidiary and correspondingly included the same in the assessee’s WDV of the fixed assets. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd. (324 ITR 29), which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

depreciation of Rs.1,58,82,133/-. Accordingly Ground No.6 is ALLOWED.” Page 32 of 37 M/s. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, batch Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 64. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-adjudication at the level