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.

disallowance made on the ground that generation of power does not amount to manufacture or production of goods, in our considered opinion, this issue is no longer res Integra and has been conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP Vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board 2SCR939 wherein it has been held

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

disallowed and added to the total income. Addition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-“ 16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned CIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after considering the remand report has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that the plant & machinery

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

disallowed and added to the total income. Addition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-“ 16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned CIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after considering the remand report has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that the plant & machinery

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

disallowed and added to the total income. Addition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-“ 16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned CIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after considering the remand report has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that the plant & machinery

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

disallowed and added to the total income. Addition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-“ 16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned CIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after considering the remand report has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that the plant & machinery

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

1-3-1987 to the then Revenue\nSecretary requesting him to issue instructions to all the\nofficers concerned with land acquisition to deduct income-\ntax on payment of interest and to follow the provisions as\nlain down under section 194A and other provisions of the\nAct. In paragraph 2 of that D.O. letter, it was stated that\nwhile paying interest

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

disallowed and added to the total income.\nAddition: Rs.272,15,43,386/-\"\n16. We further note that for the A.Y 2016-17, the learned\nCIT (A) has called for a remand report on this issue and after\nconsidering the remand report has confirmed the action of the\nAssessing Officer when the assessee has failed to establish that\nthe plant & machinery

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance on the ground that the adjustment originated from the CPC’s intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and not as a variation proposed by the AO under section 144C(1) of the Act. The learned DRP held that it lacks jurisdiction over such matters and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT in Areca

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

Disallowance of computer software expenses by treating them as capital expenditure (Rs.19,24,31,255/); During the assessment proceedings it is observed that the assessee purchased certain software and claimed the expenditure as revenue. When questioned as to why the same should not be treated as capital expenditure, it was stated that the expenditure was incurred for running the business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), HYDERABAD vs. RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that by relying on the orders of ITAT in the case of M/s. Nuzivedu Swati Costal Consortium and order passed by CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in the case of M/s. Golden Star Facilities, dt.29.02.2016, allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 43B of the Act. He directed the Assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that by relying on the orders of ITAT in the case of M/s. Nuzivedu Swati Costal Consortium and order passed by CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in the case of M/s. Golden Star Facilities, dt.29.02.2016, allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 43B of the Act. He directed the Assessing

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading “C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder Section 80AC Deduction not to be allowed unless furnished-Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading “C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder Section 80AC Deduction not to be allowed unless furnished-Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

1) of the Act, dated 21.11.2017 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act in respect of foreign exchange gain on capital account shall not be disallowed

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowed the claim of deduction, inter-alia, on the ground that a claim not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) and sought to be made for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A of the Act would not be maintainable. Further, the assessee was also found to be ineligible

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

disallowing such claims had also\ntaken support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), wherein\nit has been laid down that the AO cannot entertain a\nclaim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised\nreturn. Since the assessee neither made any such\nclaim in the original return filed

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

disallowing such claims had also\ntaken support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), wherein\nit has been laid down that the AO cannot entertain a\nclaim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised\nreturn. Since the assessee neither made any such\nclaim in the original return filed

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

disallowing such claims had also\ntaken support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), wherein\nit has been laid down that the AO cannot entertain a\nclaim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised\nreturn. Since the assessee neither made any such\nclaim in the original return filed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn