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

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

149(1)(b) of the Act, which has escaped assessment amounts to more than Rs.50 lakhs. 4. Considering the above information and based on material available on record, it is held that the case of the assessee company M/s Ace Tyres Private Limited is a fit case for issue of notice u/s.148 for AY 2016-17". SHYAM KUMAR SURAPUR CENTRAL

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

149(1) (a) of the Act. Since the impugned notice issued u/s.148 of the LT Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2023, legal and unsustainable in law, accordingly, the impugned reassessment order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 01.03.2024 and the notice of demand dated 01.03.2024 Issued u/s 158 of the Act are also bad in law and unsustainable and the same

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

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

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

house property income and, therefore, the rest of the interest cannot be allowed. 7. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us. Learned AR argued that the ground relating to the disallowance of carry forward of losses, proportionate process fee and interest are dependent upon the basic questions as to whether the assessee commenced its business or not, and whether

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

house property income and, therefore, the rest of the interest cannot be allowed. 7. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us. Learned AR argued that the ground relating to the disallowance of carry forward of losses, proportionate process fee and interest are dependent upon the basic questions as to whether the assessee commenced its business or not, and whether

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

house property income and, therefore, the rest of the interest cannot be allowed. 7. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us. Learned AR argued that the ground relating to the disallowance of carry forward of losses, proportionate process fee and interest are dependent upon the basic questions as to whether the assessee commenced its business or not, and whether

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

house property income and, therefore, the rest of the interest cannot be allowed. 7. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us. Learned AR argued that the ground relating to the disallowance of carry forward of losses, proportionate process fee and interest are dependent upon the basic questions as to whether the assessee commenced its business or not, and whether

BBR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

149 and Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT 56 Taxmann.com 456 wherein it was held that when the assessee is engaged in the business of letting out of properties, then the income received by it shall be assessed under the head income from business and not under they head Income from House Property and therefore, the authorities are not justified

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

149, section 151 and section 153 . Therefore, an assessment completed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153 A cannot fall in the ambit of section 147 and 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

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

property at Chilkoor Village, which was confirmed and admitted by Shri Apoorva Shah, nephew of the assessee in the statement recorded from him u/s.132A of the Act on 09-10-2007. Therefore held that the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act were rightly initiated and dismissed the contentions raised by the assessee. Similarly, on merits the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. 500082 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(3), HYDERABAD

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

149, 151 and Section 153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80- IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with this, hon'ble jurisdictional

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

149, 151 and Section 153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80- IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with this, hon'ble jurisdictional