KASIREDDY SASIKALAMMA,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD -1, GUDUR

Bench: Us:

Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26.03.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “(i) The order of the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) is erroneous, is contrary to law, principles of natural justice and opposed to the facts and circumstances

MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

144B(xvi)(b) of the Act and hence the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not allowing the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 438 of the Act to the extent

MAGNAQUEST TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

144B(xvi)(b) of the Act and hence the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not allowing the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 438 of the Act to the extent