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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

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

reopening is bad in law if the material facts were disclosed in the original assessment. 18.1 Ld. AR submitted that in the course of the initial assessment in response to the questionnaire issued (page 20 of paper book) the assessee filed the details of commission payments with TDS

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

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

reopening is bad in law if the material facts were disclosed in the original assessment. 18.1 Ld. AR submitted that in the course of the initial assessment in response to the questionnaire issued (page 20 of paper book) the assessee filed the details of commission payments with TDS

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

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

reopening is bad in law if the material facts were disclosed in the original assessment. 18.1 Ld. AR submitted that in the course of the initial assessment in response to the questionnaire issued (page 20 of paper book) the assessee filed the details of commission payments with TDS

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

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

reopening is bad in law if the material facts were disclosed in the original assessment. 18.1 Ld. AR submitted that in the course of the initial assessment in response to the questionnaire issued (page 20 of paper book) the assessee filed the details of commission payments with TDS

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

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

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

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

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

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

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

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SALVADI SEKHAR, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Rifaur Rahmansl

TDS credit thereon) are hereby held as taxable in the hands of this assessee protectively and are to be considered for taxation substantively in the hands of the relevant deductors, in the relevant assessment years.” 8. Thus, the A.O. held that the substantive addition is to be made in the hands of the relevant deductors and the protective addition

VENKATANNA DARA, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Rifaur Rahmansl

TDS credit thereon) are hereby held as taxable in the hands of this assessee protectively and are to be considered for taxation substantively in the hands of the relevant deductors, in the relevant assessment years.” 8. Thus, the A.O. held that the substantive addition is to be made in the hands of the relevant deductors and the protective addition

DASARI KESHANNA, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PRODDATUR, PRODDATUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Rifaur Rahmansl

TDS credit thereon) are hereby held as taxable in the hands of this assessee protectively and are to be considered for taxation substantively in the hands of the relevant deductors, in the relevant assessment years.” 8. Thus, the A.O. held that the substantive addition is to be made in the hands of the relevant deductors and the protective addition

YADAVA CHANDRA SEKHAR, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Rifaur Rahmansl

TDS credit thereon) are hereby held as taxable in the hands of this assessee protectively and are to be considered for taxation substantively in the hands of the relevant deductors, in the relevant assessment years.” 8. Thus, the A.O. held that the substantive addition is to be made in the hands of the relevant deductors and the protective addition

SREENIVASULU BANDELA, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Rifaur Rahmansl

TDS credit thereon) are hereby held as taxable in the hands of this assessee protectively and are to be considered for taxation substantively in the hands of the relevant deductors, in the relevant assessment years.” 8. Thus, the A.O. held that the substantive addition is to be made in the hands of the relevant deductors and the protective addition