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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("The Assessee") Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

TDS Statement Interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) ANDHRA BANK, SITAPHALMANDI BR. 5 AMOUNT PAID OR CREDITED 31,890 7. 3. On the basis of above information, which reveals that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amount to the tune of Rupees 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,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Section 148 is bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -. 9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material

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

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

Section 148 is bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.46,06,858/ -. 9. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

section 148A of the Income-tax Act,1961 In case of the assesse, specific information was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA software under the head 'High Risk CRIU/VRU Information' As per the specific information, Sri. KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM, CKMPK5137N had carried out following transactions during the F.Y.2019-20 relevant to the A.Y.2020-21:- Information Code

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

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

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

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., 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

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

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

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with