ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

disallowed assessee's 80IA deduction claim involving varying sum(s) (supra) in their respective orders. The same stands confirmed. These assessee's appeals are dismissed therefore.” 7. We thus hold that section 80IA’s Explanation(s) is squarely attracted herein that even if the assessee itself is treated as the developer under sub-section (4) of the very provision

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

disallowed assessee's 80IA deduction claim involving varying sum(s) (supra) in their respective orders. The same stands confirmed. These assessee's appeals are dismissed therefore.” 7. We thus hold that section 80IA’s Explanation(s) is squarely attracted herein that even if the assessee itself is treated as the developer under sub-section (4) of the very provision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

disallowed assessee's 80IA deduction claim involving varying sum(s) (supra) in their respective orders. The same stands confirmed. These assessee's appeals are dismissed therefore.” 7. We thus hold that section 80IA’s Explanation(s) is squarely attracted herein that even if the assessee itself is treated as the developer under sub-section (4) of the very provision

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

255/- is related to the US Branch sales receivables and for the purpose of consolidation the sales are accounted in the books of the assessee. Hence, the same cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. 2.5. Ought to have appreciated that the assessee need not to pay the tax merely because it is following the mercantile

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

4. Against the draft order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed its objections before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”). The Ld. DRP issued its directions under section 144C(5) of the Act on 28.09.2023. Pursuant thereto, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C

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 :

255 (Kar.), wherein the computation of book profit with reference to sections 14A and 115JB has been considered and it is held that Explanation 1 in section 115JB(2) has been inserted so as to provide that if any provision for diminution in the value of any asset has been debited to the profit and loss account, it shall

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

disallowed the same.\n5. Ostensibly, the assessee during the course of the assessment\nproceedings came up with a new claim, wherein based on a revised\nstatement of computation of income that was filed with the A.O.\non 29.08.2010, it was claimed by him that as the agricultural land\nsituated at Village: Manchirevula was not a “capital asset” within\nthe meaning

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

255(6) of the Act read with section 131 of the IT Act. 12.10 Moreover, there is no bar in law for the Tribunal to examine the documents/ statements came to it notice either itself or directing the lower authority to examine it. Further the Nuziveedu seeds Ltd., RR dist. assessment or reassessment in respect of any of the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

255(6) of the Act read with section 131 of the IT Act. 12.10 Moreover, there is no bar in law for the Tribunal to examine the documents/ statements came to it notice either itself or directing the lower authority to examine it. Further the Nuziveedu seeds Ltd., RR dist. assessment or reassessment in respect of any of the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

255(6) of the Act read with section 131 of the IT Act. 12.10 Moreover, there is no bar in law for the Tribunal to examine the documents/ statements came to it notice either itself or directing the lower authority to examine it. Further the Nuziveedu seeds Ltd., RR dist. assessment or reassessment in respect of any of the assessment

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

255(6) of the Act read with section 131 of the IT Act. 12.10 Moreover, there is no bar in law for the Tribunal to examine the documents/ statements came to it notice either itself or directing the lower authority to examine it. Further the Nuziveedu seeds Ltd., RR dist. assessment or reassessment in respect of any of the assessment

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

4 degrees celsius to restrict bacterial growth. The Ld. AR submitted that post chilling process the milk is stored in insulated storage tanks and then sent to the processing plants through insulated vans. The Ld. AR, submitted that considering the multiple processes carried out by the chilling units, there was no justification for the TPO to observe that no worthwhile

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance can be made. 16) The Assessee has placed the reliance on the following cases: a) ITAT, Hyderabad decision in the case of KPC Ltd. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. b) Sri Ram Jhanwar Lal vs, Income Tax Officer [2010 – 321 ITR 400 Rajasthan High Court] c) Bharat Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 — 258 ITR 0140 Rajasthan High

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance can be made. 16) The Assessee has placed the reliance on the following cases: a) ITAT, Hyderabad decision in the case of KPC Ltd. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. b) Sri Ram Jhanwar Lal vs, Income Tax Officer [2010 – 321 ITR 400 Rajasthan High Court] c) Bharat Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 — 258 ITR 0140 Rajasthan High

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowance can be made. 16) The Assessee has placed the reliance on the following cases: a) ITAT, Hyderabad decision in the case of KPC Ltd. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. b) Sri Ram Jhanwar Lal vs, Income Tax Officer [2010 – 321 ITR 400 Rajasthan High Court] c) Bharat Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 — 258 ITR 0140 Rajasthan High

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowance proposed in the final draft assessment order. (4) Without prejudice to the above ground, the Ld. AO erred in applying the provisions of section 40(a)(i) which are applicable to income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” whereas the Appellant has had only capital gains income during the year under consideration. (5) Without

VASANT CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Vasant Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(2) 1-11-251/1B, 4Th Floor Signature Towers Vasatnt Towers Kondapur Begumpet Hyderabad-500 084 Hyderabad-500 016

4 relate to the order of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the disallowances of depreciation on lease hold rights amounting to Rs. 77,85,255/-. 6 ITA 1505/Hyd/2018 11. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has claimed an amount of Rs. 77,85,255/- as depreciation

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

255(4) of the Income Tax Act for consideration and disposal in accordance with law: 1. Whether the provisions u/s 32AD(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (“the Act”) are applicable for the investment made in financial year 2015-16 ?. 2. Whether the notification No.61/2016/F.No.142/13/2015, TPL issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on :- 51 -: M/s Maheswari Mining & Energy

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

4 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 16/01/2025 declaring an income of Rs.19,20,130/-. As the return of income filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was beyond the stipulated period of 92 days as was provided in the said notice, therefore, the AO while framing the assessment observed that the same