EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

148 of the Act dated 24/11/2023 for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2018-19. As it is manifest from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer has given the total amount of undisclosed income as quantified by the ADIT as well as the Additional income admitted by the assessee in the year-wise chart. Based

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

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

148 of the Act dated 24/11/2023 for the A.Ys 2014-15 to 2018-19. As it is manifest from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer has given the total amount of undisclosed income as quantified by the ADIT as well as the Additional income admitted by the assessee in the year-wise chart. Based

GARIKAPATI RAGHURAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed and additional ground No

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 148 of the Act, despite the request made by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the income from the property derived from the provision of amenities to the tenants of the property is assessable under the head "income from business". ADDITIONAL GROUND: 3(b) The learned

KASUSALYA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

PREETHI FOODS AND VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KHAMMAM vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

KAUSALYA MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

UJWALA PUBLICATIONS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,WARANGAL vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

INDUR DEVELOPERS AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

KAPIL INFRA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

PREETHI FOODS AND VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KHAMMAM vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

KAUSALYA MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

INDUR DEVELOPERS AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

KAPIL FOOD AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,WARANGAL vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

148 notice dt.27.03.2019 issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year in light of section 147 first proviso. We thus quash the impugned re-opening proceedings in light of our preceding detailed discussion. These former twin appeals ITA Nos.688 & 689/Hyd/2020 are allowed. 45. We are now left with ITA Nos.690/Hyd/2020

ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

148 was issued and the case was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was stated by the assessee that during the relevant previous year she had sold her residential house property for sale consideration of Rs. 61,37,000/- and purchased of another residential house in the name of her husband

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

148. A special provision prevails over the general provision. Section 153A specially excludes the operation of section 147 and the assessment cannot be reopened. Thus, the action of the A.O in reopening of the search assessment completed u/s 153 A is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The appellant relies on the following decisions for the proposition

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

house” as provided in section 54F of the Act? 13. Before dealing with the issue, we deem it apposite to observe that the assessee had not raised the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act either in his original return of income or the return of income filed 11 Surender Kumar Bhojwani vs. ITO (Int. Taxn

RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ORISSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house rent expenses of Rs.9,88,987/- debited under the head 'Traveling expenses' and by disallowing claim of expenditure of Rs.12,83,810/- being expenses not related to the heads under which they were claimed. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 491 & 492/Hyd/2021 Rail Road Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 5. When the assessee preferred an appeal before