DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

reopening our assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 beyond four years from the end of said assessment year. 2.3 However the assessing officer after rejecting the objections of the above quoted supra determined the income of the Assessee at Rs.1427,99,37,451/- after disallowing depreciation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ABIR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafc3608N (Appellant) (Respondent)

reopened after four years from the end of the assessment year. The provisions applicable to the present case are as under: “147. If the (Assessing) officer ( has reason to believe) that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

assessment u/s. 143(3) on 27.03.2010 determining the total loss at Rs.3,19,03,542/- as against the returned loss of Rs.3,56,28,560/- by disallowing depreciation of Rs.37,25,018/-. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 on 27.03.2014 after recording the reasons for reopening

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

assessment u/s. 143(3) on 27.03.2010 determining the total loss at Rs.3,19,03,542/- as against the returned loss of Rs.3,56,28,560/- by disallowing depreciation of Rs.37,25,018/-. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 on 27.03.2014 after recording the reasons for reopening

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reopen the assessment but it has to be shown that the escapement of income was on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Explanation-1 thereof states that production before the Assessing Officer all account books or evidence from

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reopen the assessment but it has to be shown that the escapement of income was on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Explanation-1 thereof states that production before the Assessing Officer all account books or evidence from

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reopen the assessment but it has to be shown that the escapement of income was on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Explanation-1 thereof states that production before the Assessing Officer all account books or evidence from

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

assessment was reopened was not made available to it, Page Nos.125- 126 of APB. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that its case was reopened for reappreciating its claim for depreciation

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 of the case. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. In this connection, we refer to the provisions of section 147, which read as under: “Income escaping assessment. 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

reopening is bad in law. 3.The appellant therefore prays that the impugned assessment should be annulled as such. Ground II: Not giving directions to Assessing Officer to allow claim of depreciation

ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

Depreciation on Aircraft Rs. 7,77,04,217 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and furnished its submissions as under: “A. The assessing officer is not justified in initiation of re- assessment proceedings on the basis of mere change of opinion and on the facts and in the circumstances

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

reopened the assessment based on the change of opinion as there is no tangible material found in the reassessment to establish that the income has escaped assessment. In this connection, we refer to the following case laws discussed would demonstrate what would amount to ‘change of opinion’ which bars reassessment: (1) In Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manak Shoes

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

reopened the assessment based on the change of opinion as there is no tangible material found in the reassessment to establish that the income has escaped assessment. In this connection, we refer to the following case laws discussed would demonstrate what would amount to ‘change of opinion’ which bars reassessment: (1) In Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manak Shoes

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

reopened the assessment based on the change of opinion as there is no tangible material found in the reassessment to establish that the income has escaped assessment. In this connection, we refer to the following case laws discussed would demonstrate what would amount to ‘change of opinion’ which bars reassessment: (1) In Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manak Shoes

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

reopened the assessment based on the change of opinion as there is no tangible material found in the reassessment to establish that the income has escaped assessment. In this connection, we refer to the following case laws discussed would demonstrate what would amount to ‘change of opinion’ which bars reassessment: (1) In Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manak Shoes

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

depreciation allowance" in s. 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in cls. (a) and (b), viz., "escaped assessment". The term "escaped assessment" includes both "non-assessment" as well as "underassessment". Income is said to have "escaped assessment" within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged

VASU AGENCIES,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

reopening of the assessment for AY 2010-11 are as under: 3 ITA 1622-1624/Hyd/2017 i) The assessee firm has shown in the opening stock of Rs. 1,56,03,922/- the includes the additional income of Rs. 351akhs offered by the assessee during the survey operations conducted on 04-02-2009 at the premises of the assessee firm

VASU PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

reopening of the assessment for AY 2010-11 are as under: 3 ITA 1622-1624/Hyd/2017 i) The assessee firm has shown in the opening stock of Rs. 1,56,03,922/- the includes the additional income of Rs. 351akhs offered by the assessee during the survey operations conducted on 04-02-2009 at the premises of the assessee firm

VENKATA SAI AGENCIES,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Vasu Pharma Distributors Vs. Acit,Circle-4(1) 3-6-516, Street No.6 Hyderabad Vasu Pharma House Himayatnagar Hydrabad-500 029

reopening of the assessment for AY 2010-11 are as under: 3 ITA 1622-1624/Hyd/2017 i) The assessee firm has shown in the opening stock of Rs. 1,56,03,922/- the includes the additional income of Rs. 351akhs offered by the assessee during the survey operations conducted on 04-02-2009 at the premises of the assessee firm