PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED MINARPALLY,MINARPALLY VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.140/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Primary Agricultural Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit Society Ward 1 Ltd Minarpally, Minarpally Minarpally, Nizamabad Pan:Aabap7760J (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: C.A Akshay Surana राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd Minarpally (“The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05.11.2024 For The A.Y, 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Page 1 Of 18

151A(1) and (2) of the Act, mandates that with effect from 29.03.2022, all notices under section 148 of the Act must be issued through the Faceless Assessment Unit. Relying on the order of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO & 2 Others, Writ Petition Nos 25903 of 2023, dated

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)

151A, and, thus, was bad and illegal; and (ii) that as the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/04/2022 for the subject year, i.e., AY 2018-19 was issued by the AO beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., on 27/04/2022, therefore, as per the mandate of section

VASUKI KATAKAM,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1327/Hyd/2025

151A r.w.s 1448 of the Act, which is invalid and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a minor student studying intermediate course and daughter of Sri K. Venkata Ramaiah. As Kartha of HUF Sri K. Venkata Ramaiah father

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

151A of the Act. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has no authority to pass order u/s 148A(d) and issue notice u/s 148 of the Act in contravention of judicial decisions. Hence the whole reopening proceedings and the assessment order are to be held as invalid. (Additional Ground) 4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal

BALGURI RAJESHWAR RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 11(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1728/Hyd/2025

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17. PAOKHOLEN MISAO WARD 11(1), HYDERABAD/ 11. Thus, it is clear that the notice issued u/sec.148A(b), Order

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

151A of the Act, the Ld. JAO Ward- (1) has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 and such notice has to be issued only by the NFAC. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without giving proper reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is incorrect