BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

153 results for “TDS”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai724Delhi625Chennai432Pune275Bangalore215Hyderabad153Ahmedabad141Kolkata92Chandigarh79Jaipur75Cochin70Visakhapatnam68Raipur58Rajkot51Indore44Nagpur30Patna30Surat29Lucknow25Guwahati23Agra22Bombay18Panaji13Amritsar12Cuttack10Dehradun8Jabalpur6Ranchi6SC5Jodhpur3Allahabad3Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 14896Addition to Income81Section 153C67Section 14761Section 13258Search & Seizure50Section 234E45Section 6940Section 139(1)39Section 200A

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 655/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

reopening of the assessment consequent assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28-12- 2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 25. The other issues that came up for our consideration from ground nos. 4 to 8 of assessee

Showing 1–20 of 153 · Page 1 of 8

...
37
TDS28
Reopening of Assessment21

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 657/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

reopening of the assessment consequent assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28-12- 2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 25. The other issues that came up for our consideration from ground nos. 4 to 8 of assessee

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 656/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

reopening of the assessment consequent assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28-12- 2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 25. The other issues that came up for our consideration from ground nos. 4 to 8 of assessee

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

reopening which were provided to the assessee by the Assessing Officer on 31/07/2013 which has been reproduced in the preceding para. The assessee filed objection to the re- assessment proceedings which were disposed of by the Assessing Officer by passing a speaking order. 7. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, a fresh reference was made

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

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 497/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69

reopening the assessment. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 10-112017 relating to AY 2010-11. Thus, the assessment was completed after 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e 2010-11. The first proviso to section 147 stipulates that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of failure

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 676/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, 1961. Since we have quashed assessment on legal ground, other grounds taken by the assessee relating to the issue of addition towards finance costs becomes infructuous and thus, the ground of appeal taken by the assessee has been dismissed as infructuous. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 675/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act, 1961. Since we have quashed assessment on legal ground, other grounds taken by the assessee relating to the issue of addition towards finance costs becomes infructuous and thus, the ground of appeal taken by the assessee has been dismissed as infructuous. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

KASUSALYA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 679/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153CSection 36(1)(iii)

reopening of the assessment and consequent assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28-12-2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 12. The second issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal

KASUSALYA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 680/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153CSection 36(1)(iii)

reopening of the assessment and consequent assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28-12-2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 12. The second issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

reopening of the assessment for issuing\nnotice u/s 148 of the Act on 14/11/2024. Therefore, we will first\ndeal with the validity of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act\ndated 24/11/2023 for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2018-19. As it is\nmanifest from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that\nthe Assessing Officer has given

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 1190/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

TDS certificate issued to MCC Projects Ltd on 12.10.2009, it was noticed that the assessee has paid only Rs.15,53,04,930/- as sub-contract payments. This resulted excess allowance of expenditure by Rs.6,70,76,705/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 1189/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

TDS certificate issued to MCC Projects Ltd on 12.10.2009, it was noticed that the assessee has paid only Rs.15,53,04,930/- as sub-contract payments. This resulted excess allowance of expenditure by Rs.6,70,76,705/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1086/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

reopening of the assessment for issuing\nnotice u/s 148 of the Act on 14/11/2024. Therefore, we will first\ndeal with the validity of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act\ndated 24/11/2023 for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2018-19. As it is\nmanifest from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that\nthe Assessing Officer has given

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD., HYDERABAD

ITA 1873/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

reopening of the assessment for issuing notice u/s 148\nof the Act on 14/11/2024. Therefore, we will first deal with the\nvalidity of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 24/11/2023\nfor the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2018-19. As it is manifest from the reasons\nrecorded by the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer has\ngiven

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 23/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Assessing Officer or during Appeal proceedings, this only implies that the villa with these specifications has been built out of unaccounted cash and also some portion of unaccounted cash has been paid to accommodate the element of unaccounted profit of the developer company. Thus, the unaccounted portion suited both the developer company and the appellant including the other villa owners

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 22/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Assessing Officer or during Appeal proceedings, this only implies that the villa with these specifications has been built out of unaccounted cash and also some portion of unaccounted cash has been paid to accommodate the element of unaccounted profit of the developer company. Thus, the unaccounted portion suited both the developer company and the appellant including the other villa owners

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 21/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Assessing Officer or during Appeal proceedings, this only implies that the villa with these specifications has been built out of unaccounted cash and also some portion of unaccounted cash has been paid to accommodate the element of unaccounted profit of the developer company. Thus, the unaccounted portion suited both the developer company and the appellant including the other villa owners

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 20/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Assessing Officer or during Appeal proceedings, this only implies that the villa with these specifications has been built out of unaccounted cash and also some portion of unaccounted cash has been paid to accommodate the element of unaccounted profit of the developer company. Thus, the unaccounted portion suited both the developer company and the appellant including the other villa owners

PARIGE VENKAT RAM REDDY,KAMAREDDY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 19/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Assessing Officer or during Appeal proceedings, this only implies that the villa with these specifications has been built out of unaccounted cash and also some portion of unaccounted cash has been paid to accommodate the element of unaccounted profit of the developer company. Thus, the unaccounted portion suited both the developer company and the appellant including the other villa owners

KARTHIK RAGHUPATHI REDDY PADI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 83/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

Assessing Officer or during Appeal proceedings, this only implies that the villa with these specifications has been built out of unaccounted cash and also some portion of unaccounted cash has been paid to accommodate the element of unaccounted profit of the developer company. Thus, the unaccounted portion suited both the developer company and the appellant including the other villa owners