BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 151 of the Act. The failure to obtain such approval renders the entire proceedings invalid and non-est in law, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act Dt. 27.04.2022 is invalid and not justified to treat the case

SUKESINI KUMILI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

TDS Statement Interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) ANDHRA\nBANK, SITAPHALMANDI BR. 5 AMOUNT PAID OR CREDITED 31,890\n7.\n3. On the basis of above information, which reveals that the income chargeable to tax,\nrepresented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amount to the tune of\nRupees more than 50 lakhs, for the year

SIVA SANKARA REDDY TUNGA,HYDERABAD. vs. ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

TDS Statement): Rs.1,25,775/-; and (iv) time deposit exceeding Rs.2 lakhs or more with Andhra Bank: Rs.26,00,000/- , but had not filed his return of income for the subject year, i.e., AY 2016- 17, issued notice under section 148A

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

148A(d) and /\nor issuance of notice\nunder section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\n(YOGESH KUMAR VERMA, IRS)\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),\nHyderabad.\nDate: 6/10/23\n(SANJAY BAHADUR, IRS)\nDirector General of Income Tax (Inv).\nHyderabad.\n5. Thus, it is clear that an identical sanction was granted by the DGIT (Inv), Hyderabad

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

148A(d) and /\nor issuance of notice\nunder section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\nImproper many\nis covered w/1149(1)(b).\nIsame of motive of/5148\nis ayyun.\nDate: 6/10/23\n(SANJAY BAHADUR, IRS)\nDirector General of Income Tax (Inv).\nHyderabad.\n5.\nThus, it is clear that an identical sanction was granted\nby the DGIT (Inv), Hyderabad

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

Section 148 is bad in law.\n8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A)\nis not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -.\n9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the\ntime of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nWe have considered the rival contentions as well as the\nrelevant

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

Section 148 is bad in law.\n8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -.\n9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nWe have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

148A(d) as bad in law for want of approval of the\nspecified authority as provided in section 151(ii) of the I.T. Act.\n\n9.\nThe learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out\nthat since the seized material was found from the possession of\nthe other person than the assessee, then the Assessing Officer\nwas required to take

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

148A(d) as bad in law for want of approval of the\nspecified authority as provided in section 151(ii) of the I.T. Act.\n\n9.\nThe learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out\nthat since the seized material was found from the possession of\nthe other person than the assessee, then the Assessing Officer\nwas required to take

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR vs. MEGHANA ENTERPRISES, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.481/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2018-2019) The Income Tax Officer, Meghana Enterprises, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar Vs. Mahabubnagar. Pin – 509 102 Pan Abefm1414B Pin - 509001. (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Ar िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Kr Pruthvish, Advocate

Sections 148A and 148 of the Act require enquiry and issue of notices by 'Assessing Officers' 7. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that this issue was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP(C) Diary No. 48034 of 2023 in Union of India Vs. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills and Batch cases which

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEW CLUB, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

148A(d) of the Act on 29.04.2022 and issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29.04.2022, requiring the assessee to file its return of income in response thereto. However, the assessee failed to file the return of income within the time prescribed under the said notice. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that

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

148A(d) as bad in\nlaw for want of approval of the specified authority as provided\nin section 151(ii) of the I.T. Act.\n9. The learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed\nout that since the seized material was found from the\npossession of the other person than the assessee, then the\nAssessing Officer was required to take approval

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS has been deducted u/s.195 of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, in absence of proper explanation offered by the assessee with supporting documentary evidences such as bank statements etc., the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee for assessment u/sec.147 of the Act and issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act originally under old procedure

PRAKASH KANYADARA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

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

section 148A(a) of the Act on 31/05/2022 by furnishing the information and material which was relied upon. 5. In response to such notice, assessee submitted that he is a non- resident and employed in USA and during the year, he earned rental P a g e 2 | 8 income in India from immovable property of Rs. 1.22 lakhs

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 148A(d) of the Act, the delay in preferring the appeal occurred. There is no reason as to why this explanation of the Revenue cannot be accepted. Generally, Revenue does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal to be barred by limitation. The highest that would happen by condoning the delay is that a cause could be decided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAGNA HOMES, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Magna Homes, Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Pan : Aapfg5917K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 148A(b) was issued to the appellant on 16.03.2022 and in response, the appellant has 3 ITA 327/Hyd/2024 not furnished any information. Order u/s. 148A(d) was passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2022. However, the appellant has not filed any return

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nthe A

148A(d) dated\n28.07.2022 was passed, as a consequence, notice u/s 148 of\nthe Act dated 29.07.2022 was issued and served on the\nassessee. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the\nassessee had filed return of income on 25.08.2022, declaring\ntotal income at Rs.9,08,72,987/-.\n4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the\nAssessing

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

148A(d) and /\nor issuance of notice\nunder section 148 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961\nImproper manner\nis covered w/s149(1)(b).\nIssue of notice u/s 148\nis approved.\nDate: 6/10/23\n\n(SANJAY BAHADUR, IRS)\nDirector General of Income Tax (Inv).\nHyderabad.\n\n==Start of OCR for page 7==\n\n5.\nThus, it is clear that

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

148A(d) as bad in law for want of approval of the\nspecified authority as provided in section 151(ii) of the I.T. Act.\n\n9.\nThe learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out\nthat since the seized material was found from the possession of\nthe other person than the assessee, then the Assessing Officer\nwas required to take