MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 43(1). 3.6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing depreciation of Rs.183 Crores. on the erroneous understanding that Appellant had separately claimed depreciation on intangible assets of Rs.1,464 crores in addition to depreciation on total goodwill of Rs.4,492 Crores, resulting in double disallowance of depreciation

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

1) of the Act, reopened its case u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2019 was duly served upon the assessee company. However, the assessee company failed to file its return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice. As the assessee company had neither filed its return of income nor complied with the notices

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

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

disallowed the claim on the short ground that the benefit is not available to the appellant as the notification specifying Ranga Reddy District as backward area was published on 20.07.2016 and therefore the Appellant Company is not eligible to the deduction as the addition and installation of the machinery were made prior to the said date. Aggrieved with the action

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

1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,77,839; 3. erred in upholding the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 10,00,000 as determined by the Ld. AO on ad-hoc basis; Additional Ground 3.1. erred in disallowing the expenses pertaining to AY 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 11,51,001 without appreciating the facts of the Appellant

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

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

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

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

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CRICLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

1) of the Act,\nreopened its case u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act\ndated 31.03.2019 was duly served upon the assessee company.\nHowever, the assessee company failed to file its return of income\nin compliance to the aforesaid notice. As the assessee company\nhad neither filed its return of income nor complied with the 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

disallowance of the provision for periodic maintenance of Rs. 1,11,47,4861- by stating that appellant has not actually paid these expenses and it is only a provision and ignoring that reserve was created under mandate agreement in between the principal i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms

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

disallowance of the provision for periodic maintenance of Rs. 1,11,47,4861- by stating that appellant has not actually paid these expenses and it is only a provision and ignoring that reserve was created under mandate agreement in between the principal i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms

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

disallowance of the provision for periodic maintenance of Rs. 1,11,47,4861- by stating that appellant has not actually paid these expenses and it is only a provision and ignoring that reserve was created under mandate agreement in between the principal i.e., NHAI and concessionaire and also there is no power 1 right except to mandate the NHAI terms

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

1). Another argument put forward is that it is disallowable under the hands of the medical professionals but not in the hands of Pharma Companies. the intention of the prohibition imposed by the Medical council of India (statutory body) in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the Regulations

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

1). Another argument put forward is that it is disallowable under the hands of the medical professionals but not in the hands of Pharma Companies. the intention of the prohibition imposed by the Medical council of India (statutory body) in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the Regulations

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

1). Another argument put forward is that it is disallowable under the hands of the medical professionals but not in the hands of Pharma Companies. the intention of the prohibition imposed by the Medical council of India (statutory body) in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the Regulations

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

1). Another argument put forward is that it is disallowable under the hands of the medical professionals but not in the hands of Pharma Companies. the intention of the prohibition imposed by the Medical council of India (statutory body) in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the Regulations

M/S HIGHGRACE INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahappellant Respondent

Section 251(1)(a) empowers the CIT in an appeal against an order of assessment to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Thus, since the CIT(A) has not un- earthed a new source of income, but only has gone by the annual report/ statements enclosed to the return in which assessee has claimed trading loss