NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

rectification of apparent mistakes from his order and where the issue is debatable, such order cannot not be rectified u/s 154. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P) LTd (1997) 228 ITR 463 (S.C) ii) ITO vs. Volkat Brothers and Others

ROCKSALT INTERACTIVE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

depreciation and. whether the assessee is entitled for set off of the same against current year's income have not been verified by the AO while completing the scrutiny assessment. Only when the AO applied his mind and takes a decision in consonance with the legal position arid as per the provisions of the Act, then the revisionary powers

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

rectification Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. action u/s 154. The Assessing Officer has therefore, rightly rejected the petition u/s 154 seeking deduction u/s 80IA.” 27. The assessee vide his application dt.04.07.2013 filed two M.A. Nos.171 and 172 /Hyd/2013 in ITA Nos.805 and 806/Hyd/2010 for A.Y.s 2005-06 and 2006-07 before the Tribunal. The submissions made by the assessee

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

rectification Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. action u/s 154. The Assessing Officer has therefore, rightly rejected the petition u/s 154 seeking deduction u/s 80IA.” 27. The assessee vide his application dt.04.07.2013 filed two M.A. Nos.171 and 172 /Hyd/2013 in ITA Nos.805 and 806/Hyd/2010 for A.Y.s 2005-06 and 2006-07 before the Tribunal. The submissions made by the assessee

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

rectification Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. action u/s 154. The Assessing Officer has therefore, rightly rejected the petition u/s 154 seeking deduction u/s 80IA.” 27. The assessee vide his application dt.04.07.2013 filed two M.A. Nos.171 and 172 /Hyd/2013 in ITA Nos.805 and 806/Hyd/2010 for A.Y.s 2005-06 and 2006-07 before the Tribunal. The submissions made by the assessee

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS),WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

NEERAJ KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer on 18.03.2010 was not in conformity with the direction of the Tribunal dt.31.03.2011. The assessee had preferred to file various objections for seeking the enforcement of the order passed by the Tribunal and the letter was also written on 11.10.2013 to give effect to the order. However, on the application of the assessee

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

rectification application must have been decided in its favour. No documents have been shown to us demonstrating any inquiry or efforts were made by the assessee for seeking information about its application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee has taken the things for granted and wrongly presumed that the application made by it must have been decided in favour

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification. Therefore, I hold that Assessing Officer should not have restricted interest u/s. 244A by attributing the delay to the assessee by an order passed u/s 154. Hence, Assessing Officer is directed to allow interest u/s. 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order for the full period.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification. Therefore, I hold that Assessing Officer should not have restricted interest u/s. 244A by attributing the delay to the assessee by an order passed u/s 154. Hence, Assessing Officer is directed to allow interest u/s. 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order for the full period.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification. Therefore, I hold that Assessing Officer should not have restricted interest u/s. 244A by attributing the delay to the assessee by an order passed u/s 154. Hence, Assessing Officer is directed to allow interest u/s. 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order for the full period.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue

M/S HIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

rectification. We find merit in the submission of the assessee for which the Ld.DR also did not object. Therefore, we, direct the AO to allow the weighted deduction as and when the approval in form 3CL is received without the limitation period u/s 154. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose on alternate ground. 27. The second

M/S HIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

rectification. We find merit in the submission of the assessee for which the Ld.DR also did not object. Therefore, we, direct the AO to allow the weighted deduction as and when the approval in form 3CL is received without the limitation period u/s 154. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose on alternate ground. 27. The second