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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Disallowance of depreciation claimed on goodwill arising out of scheme of amalgamation. 10. Brief facts relating to this ground are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had acquired Agila Specialities Ltd. (ASPL) along with wholly owned subsidiary (WoS) Onco Therapies Ltd. (OTL) on 05/12/2013, in order to create a global injectables leader, to strengthen its platform and become

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

928/- u/s 43B by the CIT(A), we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue is in favour of :- 10 -: ITA Nos.. 637, 710 & 722/Hyd/2020 M/s Madhucon Projects Ltd., Hyd. the assessee for the reason that it was paid after the due date of filing of the return of income and suo-moto

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

928/- u/s 43B by the CIT(A), we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue is in favour of :- 10 -: ITA Nos.. 637, 710 & 722/Hyd/2020 M/s Madhucon Projects Ltd., Hyd. the assessee for the reason that it was paid after the due date of filing of the return of income and suo-moto

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

928/- u/s 43B by the CIT(A), we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue is in favour of :- 10 -: ITA Nos.. 637, 710 & 722/Hyd/2020 M/s Madhucon Projects Ltd., Hyd. the assessee for the reason that it was paid after the due date of filing of the return of income and suo-moto

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

928/ -. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IE / 80-IC / 80-ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made

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

928/ -. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IE / 80-IC / 80-ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. APPLABS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH M/S COMPUTER SCIENCE INDIA PVT. LTD.), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

928 would not apply to the facts of the case. Others 14. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, in using single year data (pertaining to FY 2011-12 only) of the comparables to arrive at the ALP without taking cognizance of the fact that such data may not truly reflect the market

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS APPLABS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

928 would not apply to the facts of the case. Others 14. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, in using single year data (pertaining to FY 2011-12 only) of the comparables to arrive at the ALP without taking cognizance of the fact that such data may not truly reflect the market

APPLABS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD (NOW MERGED WITH COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION PVT LTD ),,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

928 would not apply to the facts of the case. Others 14. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, in using single year data (pertaining to FY 2011-12 only) of the comparables to arrive at the ALP without taking cognizance of the fact that such data may not truly reflect the market

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

disallows Rs.1,88,12,419/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer passed the order assessing the total income at Rs.280,42,75,540/-. Page 7 of 82 5. Ground Nos.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.348/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 5.1. Ground No.1 and 5 raised

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. HETERO LABS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

disallows Rs.1,88,12,419/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer passed the order assessing the total income at Rs.280,42,75,540/-. Page 7 of 82 5. Ground Nos.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.348/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 5.1. Ground No.1 and 5 raised

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

disallows Rs.1,88,12,419/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer passed the order assessing the total income at Rs.280,42,75,540/-. Page 7 of 82 5. Ground Nos.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.348/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 5.1. Ground No.1 and 5 raised

HETERO LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

disallows Rs.1,88,12,419/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer passed the order assessing the total income at Rs.280,42,75,540/-. Page 7 of 82 5. Ground Nos.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.348/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 5.1. Ground No.1 and 5 raised

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

disallowance of depreciation of INR 3,57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation 2.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/DRP have erred in denying the depreciation claimed by the Assessee on the following grounds: 2.1.1. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not granting depreciation on building under section

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance of depreciation of INR 3,57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation 2.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/DRP have erred in denying the depreciation claimed by the Assessee on the following grounds: 2.1.1. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not granting depreciation on building under section

SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

disallowance of depreciation of INR 3,57,97,208. Ground No. 2: Corporate Tax: Denial of Depreciation 2.1. In law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/DRP have erred in denying the depreciation claimed by the Assessee on the following grounds: 2.1.1. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in not granting depreciation on building under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. IMERYS CERAMICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. Imerys Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aaacj 7424Q ..Respondent. Appellant By : Smt. N. Esther. (D.R.) Respondent By : Shri Ravi Bharadwaj. Date Of Hearing : 2.6.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2021. O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.05.01.2018 Passed In Case No. 0238/Cit(A)-8/Hyd/2016-17 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

section 115JB computation issue as follows : 3 4 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’s pleadings that the Assessing Officer had correctly reduced the accumulated unabsorbed depreciation after considering the corresponding figures in Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 5 while partly accepting the assessee's claim to the tune of Rs.96,31,928 thereby making

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, Rs.32,08,439/- on account of gratuity, Rs.6,19,251/- on account of ESOP provision and Rs.3,26,536/- on account of leave encashment. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.09.2022, making total additions of Rs.7,32,53,928