ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

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 142A of the Act and after considering relevant valuation report submitted by the valuer, the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of depreciation of non-compete fee. In this regard, he has submitted relevant observations of the Tribunal and also the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-2009 dated 19.05.2023 where

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 142A of the Act and after considering relevant valuation report submitted by the valuer, the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of depreciation of non-compete fee. In this regard, he has submitted relevant observations of the Tribunal and also the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-2009 dated 19.05.2023 where

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 142A of the Act and after considering relevant valuation report submitted by the valuer, the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of depreciation of non-compete fee. In this regard, he has submitted relevant observations of the Tribunal and also the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-2009 dated 19.05.2023 where

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 142A of the Act and after considering relevant valuation report submitted by the valuer, the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of depreciation of non-compete fee. In this regard, he has submitted relevant observations of the Tribunal and also the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-2009 dated 19.05.2023 where

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 142A of the Act and after considering relevant valuation report submitted by the valuer, the Assessing Officer has allowed the claim of depreciation of non-compete fee. In this regard, he has submitted relevant observations of the Tribunal and also the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-2009 dated 19.05.2023 where

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

disallowing Rs.10,01,27,605/- out of depreciation claimed on Film Software Library. The Assessing Officer while computing the tax payable granted 5. credit for TDS of Rs.6,57,25,703/- against Rs.6,76,21,038/- claimed by the Appellant and did not even state anything as to why credit is not given for the difference. In this regard, Appellant

FLYTECH AVIATION LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Flytech Aviation Limited, Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Secunderabad. Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Pan : Aaacf3053D. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca Revenue By: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.09.2022

disallowance made u/s 43B of the Act of Rs.18,32,869/- without appreciating the fact that the same is not covered under the provisions of section 43B of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, who is engaged in the business of Commercial Pilot-Training and Aircraft Maintenance Engineering, filed its return of income