SRI RAMADAS PAPER BOARDS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Ramadas Paper Boards (P) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadcs2140M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section states that: - -When an asset was acquired from a foreign country, -Due to change in rate of exchange there is increase or reduction in liability of amount to be paid on asset. -The adjustment to the cost of asset by way of increase or decrease shall be made at the time of making the payment. Assessing Officer as well

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

Bench: Us:

disallowed the corresponding discounted rate of interest element pertaining to the said loan, which, however, as per the directions of the DRP had already been restricted up to the date of repayment of the said loan. 45 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. 45. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the issue of quantification of claim of deduction

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 18.03.2014 on the ground that, the assessee has not challenged the additions made by the A.O. and accepted the disallowances. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the addition made towards disallowance of foreign

KAMINENI HEALTH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Kamineni Health Services Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaack8313R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Sashank Dundu Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7Th Nov.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Healthcare. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned A.Y Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Business Loss Of Rs.48,33,667/- Under The Normal Provision & Book Profits U/S 115Jb Amounting To Rs. 1,38,45,489/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee To Page 1 Of 16

section 43A of the Act, these amounts are to be added in the cost of acquisition of the asset for the purpose of depreciation for the A.Ys concerned. We, therefore, answer question No.2 in the negative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue”. 8.4 Respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the loss on foreign exchange

LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

disallowance of expenditure towards currency fluctuations. 6. Assessee, therefore, filed ITA No. 589/Hyd/2020 in respect of the additions sustained and Revenue filed ITA No. 96/Hyd/2021 in respect of the relief granted to the assessee by the learned CIT(A). Assessee preferred cross objection supporting the view taken by the Learned CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee. Page

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

disallowance of expenditure towards currency fluctuations. 6. Assessee, therefore, filed ITA No. 589/Hyd/2020 in respect of the additions sustained and Revenue filed ITA No. 96/Hyd/2021 in respect of the relief granted to the assessee by the learned CIT(A). Assessee preferred cross objection supporting the view taken by the Learned CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee. Page

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed the claim of the assessee after relying on the directions of Hon’ble DRP and in addition had denied the claim after relying upon section 43A

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed the claim of the assessee after relying on the directions of Hon’ble DRP and in addition had denied the claim after relying upon section 43A

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed the claim of the assessee after relying on the directions of Hon’ble DRP and in addition had denied the claim after relying upon section 43A

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed the claim of the assessee after relying on the directions of Hon’ble DRP and in addition had denied the claim after relying upon section 43A

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

disallowed the claim of the assessee after relying on the directions of Hon’ble DRP and in addition had denied the claim after relying upon section 43A

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,53,922/- as allowable deduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. However, granted depreciation on the same. 115. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by virtue of section 43A

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,53,922/- as allowable deduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. However, granted depreciation on the same. 115. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by virtue of section 43A

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,53,922/- as allowable deduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. However, granted depreciation on the same. 115. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by virtue of section 43A

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,53,922/- as allowable deduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. However, granted depreciation on the same. 115. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by virtue of section 43A

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,53,922/- as allowable deduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. However, granted depreciation on the same. 115. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by virtue of section 43A

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,53,922/- as allowable deduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. However, granted depreciation on the same. 115. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by virtue of section 43A

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,53,922/- as allowable deduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. However, granted depreciation on the same. 115. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by virtue of section 43A

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,53,922/- as allowable deduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. However, granted depreciation on the same. 115. At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) by virtue of section 43A