VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 574/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves VITP Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the PCIT, Hyderabad, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The PCIT had set aside the AO's assessment order, citing that the AO had not examined certain issues related to the merger of Flex Developers Pvt. Ltd. into VITP and the consequent claims of depreciation and deductions. The Tribunal examined the merits of the issues and found that the AO's original assessment was correct, leading to the setting aside of the PCIT's order and restoration of the AO's assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780100 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd., CIT v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., CIT v. Reliance Energy Ltd., Alfa Laval Lund AB v. CIT, Hubtown Ltd. v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ADVOCATES PERCY PERDIWALA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Capital asset; Revised return; Transfer pricing; Question of law; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation; Wholly owned subsidiary; Revision of order; Scheme of amalgamation
• Section: 143(3); 263; 32; 28; 115JB

Judgement Text

" ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 1 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad ŵी रिवश सूद,Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद˟ समƗ | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18) VITP Private Limited Hyderabad PAN:AACCV2672G Vs. Dy. CIT Circle 8 (1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Advocates Percy Perdiwala and Mahima Goud राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These two appeals are filed by VITP Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.PCIT”), dated 30/03/2024 for the A.Y.2017-18. As both the appeals are interrelated and belongs to the same, both are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of brevity. ITA No. 573/Hyd/2024 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 2 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 3 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate and renting services. It filed its return of income for AY 2017–18 on 30.11.2018 admitting a total Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 4 income of Rs.39,48,80,850/- under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and Rs.63,69,63,187/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2018 declaring total income under the normal provisions at Rs.Nil and book profit of Rs.53,48,03,873/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) and 144B was passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on 28.06.2021, making an addition of Rs.2,26,82,071/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 4. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act and issued notice to the assessee on 08.03.2024. The Ld. PCIT recorded that the Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment failed to examine two specific issues, which is covered under Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Act, thereby rendering the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. At para no.3 of his order, the Ld. PCIT has recorded as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 5 5. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT has observed that M/s Flex Developers Pvt. Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the assessee company, had merged into the assessee company on 03.02.2017. On perusal of the return of income and audit report of the assessee, he also observed that the written down value (“WDV”) of the block of assets of building and plant & machinery as on 31.03.2017 in the hands of M/s Flex Developers Pvt. Ltd. was not adopted as the actual cost in the depreciation schedule of the assessee company as required under Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act. Accordingly, he concluded that the assessee company had taken excess WDV of Rs.56,78,75,869/-, resulting in excess claim of depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/-. He further observed that the total income of the assessee was Rs.15,96,77,696/-, comprising of business income of Rs.7,42,25,071/-, short-term capital gain of Rs.24,66,759/- and income from other sources of Rs.8,29,85,866/-. However, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Act against the entire total income of Rs.15,96,77,696/-. The Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessee was eligible for deduction only against the business income of Rs.7,42,25,071/-, and therefore, the assessee had claimed excess deduction under section 80IA of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 6 Act against short-term capital gain and income from other sources aggregating to Rs.8,54,52,625/-. After considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the Ld. PCIT concluded that both the issues were not examined by the Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment, hence treated the order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, vide order dated 30.03.2024, the Ld. PCIT set aside the assessment and directed the Ld. AO to redo the assessment. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. With regard to the issue of excess claim of depreciation, the Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that during the relevant year, Flex Developers Pvt. Ltd. was merged into the assessee company on 03.02.2017. Flex Developers (P) Ltd had total unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.56,78,75,869/- as on appointed date. The assessee added this amount of unabsorbed depreciation to the WDV of the respective blocks and claimed depreciation on the increased WDV, which resulted in increase in depreciation by Rs.3,37,71,787/-. He further submitted that, the Ld. PCIT alleged that the assessee has increased the WDV of the fixed assets and thereby claimed an excess depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that, as per Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, the assessee can add to its block of assets the value of assets received from subsidiary after reducing the depreciation “actually allowed” in the hands of the subsidiary. Therefore, as per the clear understanding of Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act , it is only the amount of depreciation which is actually allowed to the assessee can only be reduced from the value of the fixed assets. Therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation can never be deemed as actually allowed to the subsidiary. Accordingly, the assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 7 company increased the WDV of the fixed assets received from the subsidiary and correspondingly included the same in the assessee’s WDV of the fixed assets. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd. (324 ITR 29), which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of Revenue’s SLP on 28.07.2008, wherein the Hon’ble Court has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (187 ITR 1). The Ld. AR also invited our attention to the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. PCIT, placed at page nos. 332 and 333 of the paper book, where all details and reliance on case law were explained by the assessee. Despite this, the Ld. PCIT did not examine the merits of the issue and simply remanded the issue to the Ld. AO. The Ld. PCIT also failed to give any findings on merits in his order. 7. With regard to the issue of Excess Claim of Deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that Form 10CCB of the eligible units filed by the assessee demonstrated the eligibility for deduction of Rs.22,80,95,375/- u/s 80IA of the Act from eligible units. However, the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.15,96,77,696/-, which is less than the eligible deduction of Rs.22,80,95,375/-. As per the provisions of section 80A(2) of the Act, the only restriction is that the deduction cannot exceed gross total income of the assessee. There is no restriction provided under the Act, that the gross total income should only consist of business income. In support of their submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Energy Ltd. (441 ITR 346, dated 28.04.2021), Pune Bench of the ITAT in Alfa Laval Lund AB v. CIT (ITA No.1287/PUN/2017, order Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 8 dated 02.11.2021, AY 2012–13) and Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in Hubtown Ltd. v. CIT (ITA No.696/MUM/2021, order dated 26.04.2022, AY 2015–16). Reference was also made to submissions placed at page nos.331 & 332 of the paper book, showing that all facts and arguments were submitted to the Ld. PCIT. Yet, without giving any findings on merits, the Ld. PCIT simply directed the AO for de novo adjudication. 8. The Ld. AR thus prayed that when adequate submissions and documentary evidence were made before the Ld. PCIT, the Ld. PCIT was bound to verify the genuineness and record findings on allowability. Without doing so, remanding the issue to the Ld. AO is unjustified. He further submitted that, as on merits, both the claims of the assessee are allowable, the order of the Ld. PCIT may be set aside. 9. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. AO made no enquiry regarding the two issues in question. The absence of enquiry itself is covered under Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Act, which deems such assessment orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT rightly set aside the assessment and directed de novo verification. 10. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the case laws relied upon by both the parties. With regard to the issue of excess claim of depreciation, the Ld. AR has submitted that during the relevant year, Flex Developers Pvt. Ltd. was merged into the assessee company on 03.02.2017. Flex Developers (P) Ltd had total unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.56,78,75,869/- as on the appointed Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 9 date. The assessee added this amount of unabsorbed depreciation to the WDV of the respective blocks and claimed depreciation on the increased WDV, which resulted in increase in depreciation by Rs.3,37,71,787/-. He further submitted that, the Ld. PCIT alleged that the assessee has increased the WDV of the fixed assets and thereby claimed an excess depreciation of Rs.3,37,71,787/-. In this regard, we have gone through the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which is to the following effect: 11. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the assessee can add to its block of assets the value of assets received from subsidiary after reducing the depreciation “actually allowed” in the hands of the subsidiary. Therefore, as per the clear understanding of Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, it is only the amount of depreciation which is actually allowed to the subsidiary can only be reduced from the value of the assets. In this regard, we have also gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 10 case of CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd. (324 ITR 29), which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of Revenue’s SLP on 28.07.2008, wherein at para nos. 4 to 11 of its order, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: 4. In respect of the claim of depreciation, the assessee had added the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company to the written down value and claimed depreciation on the resultant amount. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation only on the written down value and not on the value enhanced, by the amount of unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In respect of the depreciation, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that depreciation could be allowed only on the written down value as appearing in the balance-sheet and there was no provision for enhancing the same by adding unabsorbed depreciation carried forward in the case of the amalgamating company. Regarding deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by referring to the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes No. F. 15/5/63-IT(A-I) dated December 13, 1963, wherein it was clarified that the successor would be entitled to the benefit of deduction under the old section 84, in respect of the unexpired period, and observing that though the circular was issued with reference to section 84, the same principle would apply to sections 80HH and 80-I and that too with greater force in a case of amalgamation held that the amalgamated company would be eligible for the relief claimed in respect of the amalgamating companies prior to their amalgamation. Holding so, he directed the Assessing Officer to examine whether those units were eligible for deduction in the initial year and if so, to allow the admissible claim to the assessee for the assessment year under appeal. 6. Aggrieved by that portions of the order decided against them by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal held that the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company should not be deducted in computing the written down value of the assets in the hands of the amalgamated company and thus allowed the appeal filed at the instance of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the written down value. In respect of the appeal filed by the Revenue questioning the correctness of the deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 11 Dandeli Ferro Alloys (P.) Ltd. [1995] 212 ITR 1 . The correctness of the said order is now canvassed before this court. 7. The appeal was admitted on the following questions of law: \"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amalgamated company was entitled to depreciation on the written down value of assets as increased by the unabsorbed depreciation carried forward in the hands of the amalgamating company ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee- company being the amalgamated company was entitled to deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I in respect of the units set up by the amalgamating company ?\" 8. We heard the argument of learned counsel on either side with reference to the questions of law framed and taken up for decision on the materials on record. 9. In order to answer the first question of law, it would be proper to extract the relevant portion of section 43(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. \"43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ... (6)'written down value' means— (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee ; (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or any Act repealed by that Act, or under any executive orders issued when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886 (2 of 1886), was in force : . . . Explanation 2A.—Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, any capital asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company, and the amalgamated company is an Indian company, the written down value of the transferred capital asset to the amalgamated company shall be taken to be the same Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 12 as it would have been if the amalgamating company had continued to hold the capital asset for the purposes of its business. Explanation 3.—Any allowance in respect of any depreciation carried forward under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall be deemed to be depreciation 'actually allowed'.\" 10. From the reading of Explanation 2A extracted above, it is patently clear that the written down value of the transferred capital asset to the amalgamated company would be the same as it would have been if the amalgamating company continue to hold the capital asset for the purpose of its business. The statutory provision makes it clear that the written down value of the asset would be the actual cost of the assets of the assessee less depreciation allowed to the company. Any unabsorbed depreciation which was not set off for carry forward could not be taken into account. A similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 1 which has been applied by this court in CIT v. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 600 . 11. In the light of the reasoning stated in the above referred to decisions, the question of law has to decided against the Revenue and the same is thus decided against the Revenue.” 12. On perusal of the above, we found that the Hon’ble High Court has held the amount of unabsorbed depreciation which was not set off for carry forward could not be taken into account for the meaning of depreciation actually allowed. Therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation can never be deemed as actually allowed to the subsidiary. Accordingly, in our considered view, there is no infirmity in the action of the assessee company which has increased the WDV of the fixed assets received from the subsidiary and correspondingly included the same in the assessee’s WDV of the fixed assets. Therefore, there is no excess claim of depreciation in the hand of the assessee. We have also gone through the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. PCIT, placed at page nos. 332 and 333 of the paper book, which is to the following effect: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 14 13. On perusal of the above, we find that all details and reliance on case law were explained by the assessee before the Ld. PCIT. Despite this, the Ld. PCIT did not examine the merits of the issue and simply remanded the issue to the Ld. AO, which in our considered view is not sustainable under the Act. 14. With regard to the issue of Excess Claim of Deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the Ld. AR has submitted that Form 10CCB of the eligible units demonstrated eligibility for deduction of Rs.22,80,95,375/- from eligible units. However, the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.15,96,77,696/-, which is less than the eligible deduction of Rs.22,80,95,375/-. There is no dispute about the facts qua the quantum of total eligible deductions u/s 80IA of the Act and gross total income of the assessee. We have gone through the provisions of Section 80A of the Act, which is to the following effect: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 15 15. On perusal of the above, we find that as per the provisions of section 80A(2) of the Act, the only restriction is that the deduction cannot exceed gross total income of the assessee. There is no restriction provided under the Act, that the gross total income Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 16 should only consist of business income. Our said observation got fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Energy Ltd. (Supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at para no 12 of its order has held as under: “12. The import of Section 80-IA is that the 'total income' of an assessee is computed by taking into account the allowable deduction of the profits and gains derived from the 'eligible business'. With respect to the facts of this Appeal, there is no dispute that the deduction quantified under section 80-IA is Rs. 492,78,60,973/-. To make it clear, the said amount represents the net profit made by the Assessee from the 'eligible business' covered under sub-section (4), i.e., from the Assessee's business unit involved in generation of power. The claim of the Assessee is that in computing its 'total income', deductions available to it have to be set-of against the 'gross total income', while the Revenue contends that it is only the 'business income' which has to be taken into account for the purpose of setting- off the deductions under sections 80-IA and 80-IB of the Act. To illustrate, the 'gross total income' of the Assessee for the assessment year 2002-03 is less than the quantum of deduction determined under section 80-IA of the Act. The Assessee contends that income from all other heads including 'income from other sources', in addition to 'business income', have to be taken into account for the purpose of allowing the deductions available to the Assessee, subject to the ceiling of 'gross total income'. The Appellate Authority was of the view that there is no limitation on deduction admissible under section 80- IA of the Act to income under the head 'business' only, with which we agree.” 16. On perusal of the above, we find that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that there is no limitation on deduction admissible u/s 80IA of the Act to income under the head “business” only. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we hold that as per the provisions of section 80IA of the Act, the only restriction is that the deduction cannot exceed gross total income of the assessee. There is no restriction provided under the Act, that the gross total income should only consist of business income. Accordingly, the assessee is eligible for deduction upto the gross total income of Rs.15,96,77,696/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 17 17. We have also gone through the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. PCIT placed at page nos.331 & 332 of the paper book, which is to the following effect: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 18 18. On perusal of the above, we find that the assessee had explained all facts and arguments before the Ld. PCIT. Yet, without giving any findings on merits, the Ld. PCIT simply directed the AO for de novo adjudication, which in our considered view is not sustainable under the Act. 19. In view of the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, once all submissions and documents were there before the Ld. PCIT, it was incumbent on him to decide the issues on merits. Without doing so, directing the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication amounts to abdication of jurisdiction. Therefore, in our view, when merits are clear and claims are legally allowable, such remand is unwarranted. Accordingly, we hold that on merits, the claim of depreciation on amalgamation and the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are both allowable. The order of the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act, directing de novo assessment without adjudication on merits, is unsustainable. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 19 Accordingly, the order of the Ld. PCIT is set aside and the assessment order of the Ld. AO is restored. 20. The assessee has also raised a legal ground challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the provisions of section 263 of the Act and submitted that the Ld. PCIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Ld. AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, then only the Ld. PCIT can assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. It was submitted that such satisfaction has to be arrived at independently by the Ld. PCIT, and he cannot merely rely on a proposal of the Ld. AO. In this regard, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.3 of the impugned order, which has already been reproduced at Para No.4 above. 21. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the findings recorded by the Ld. PCIT at para no.3 of his order, it is evident that the Ld. AO submitted a proposal under section 263 of the Act on 04.03.2024. The Ld. AR submitted that this makes it clear that the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act has been assumed by the Ld. PCIT on the proposal of the Ld. AO, which is not permissible under law, since the Ld. PCIT has to form an independent satisfaction before invoking section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that the invocation of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is void ab initio and is liable to be quashed. 22. Since we have already set aside the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT on merits, therefore, adjudication of the legal ground challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 20 of the Act is rendered academic. Accordingly, we do not propose to decide this legal issue, and the same is kept open. 23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.573/Hyd/2024 is allowed. ITA No.574/Hyd/2024 24. On perusal of page nos.17 and 18 of the order of the Ld. PCIT, we find that the Ld. PCIT has stated as under: 25. On perusal of the above, we found that, the Ld. PCIT has stated that in the ITBA, two separate worklist items were generated by the system for the same assessment year in respect of two different issues. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT has passed one consolidated common order under section 263 of the Act. However, since two worklist items were created, the system generated two different DINs for the same consolidated order of the Ld. PCIT. Consequently, the assessee has filed two separate appeals before us against the very same consolidated order of the Ld. PCIT. We have already adjudicated the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.573/Hyd/2024 arising out of the same consolidated order of the Ld. PCIT, wherein we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee and set aside the order of the Ld. PCIT. Once the consolidated order itself has been set aside, the present appeal Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited 21 arising out of the very same consolidated order does not survive independently under the provisions of the Act. In other words, two appeals cannot be sustained against one consolidated order. Since the consolidated order of the Ld. PCIT has already been set aside in ITA No.573/Hyd/2024, the present appeal is rendered infructuous. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.574/Hyd/2024 is dismissed as infructuous. 27. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.573/Hyd/2024 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.574/Hyd/2024 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 8th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 8th October, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 VITP (P) Ltd, Capella Block, 5tyh Floor, Plot No.17 Software Units Layout Madhapur, Shaikpet, Hyderabad 500081 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 8(1) Signature Tower, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp: Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Hyderabad 500084 Telangana 3 Pr. CIT – Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "