VIJAYARAGHAVAN LAKSHMI,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu

rectification order is not a valid one. The provisions of section 154 were also brought to the notice of the ld.CIT(A). 3 ITA 260/Hyd/2022 4. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the 154 order passed by the AO by observing as under:- 6. In the instant case, notice u/s

KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

rectification U/s. 154 and passed on the partial relief granted by the ITAT to the assessee and thereby reduce the assessed income U/s. 143(3), less than to Rs. 2,56,25,810/-. 8. The A.O. ought to have consider that, the CIT(A) can only enhance the assessed income in appeal, but not in the Hon’ble ITAT without

KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

rectification U/s. 154 and passed on the partial relief granted by the ITAT to the assessee and thereby reduce the assessed income U/s. 143(3), less than to Rs. 2,56,25,810/-. 8. The A.O. ought to have consider that, the CIT(A) can only enhance the assessed income in appeal, but not in the Hon’ble ITAT without

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification. Therefore, I hold that Assessing Officer should not have restricted interest u/s. 244A by attributing the delay to the assessee by an order passed u/s 154. Hence, Assessing Officer is directed to allow interest u/s. 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order for the full period.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification. Therefore, I hold that Assessing Officer should not have restricted interest u/s. 244A by attributing the delay to the assessee by an order passed u/s 154. Hence, Assessing Officer is directed to allow interest u/s. 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order for the full period.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification. Therefore, I hold that Assessing Officer should not have restricted interest u/s. 244A by attributing the delay to the assessee by an order passed u/s 154. Hence, Assessing Officer is directed to allow interest u/s. 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order for the full period.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue

LOVEEN BABU VUPPALA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

rectification of mistake and hopeful of getting relief from the Assessing Officer, however, when the Assessing Officer rejected the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act, even though, it was a case for rectifying mistake, the assessee has filed appeal which caused delay of 159 days. In our considered view, the reasons given by the assessee that

SONALI VERMA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(6), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Smt. Sonali Verma Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12 (6) Pan:Amnpv3410A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sk Chaturvedi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order

rectification under Section 154 could be resorted by the assessee. Similar view has been taken in 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore - Trib.) /[ITA No.29/Bang/ 2021 order dated 7th March, 2022). A reference is made to another Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC

NANDA KISHORE RAVULA,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

u/s 143(1) dated 22/03/2022 disallowed the claim of Foreign Tax Credit on the ground that the assessee has not filed Form 67 within the prescribed limit i.e. 31st Dec. 2021 in case of the assessee. The assessee filed Form 67 on 6/8/2022 and challenged the order of the CPC before the learned CIT (A) but could not succeed

SUDHEER PARIMALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.758/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Sudheer Parimala, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 016. Vs. Ward-10(1), Hyderabad. Pan Ahppp7572E Pin - 500 004. Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order

rectification notice under Section 154 of the Act which are extracted hereunder: "1. On perusal of the assessment order u/s 143(3), it is seen that addition made of Rs.40,00,00,000/- on unexplained cash credits with regard to shares allotment to M/s. Cancer Treatment Services Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd. However, AO added only Rs.40,00,000/- instead of Rs.40

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. DIVYA SHAKTI GRANITES LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment framed on 28.12.2014 is an invalid one on account of the fact that the prescribed authority u/s. 151(2) of the Act had not granted the necessary sanction to the corresponding reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. This issue admittedly goes to the root of the matter. We therefore proceed to decide the assessee's foregoing legal ground

AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

rectification under Section 154 14 ITA.No.1705/Hyd./2025 could be resorted by the assessee. Similar view has been taken in 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore - Trib.) /[ITA No.29/Bang/ 2021 order dated 7th March, 2022). A reference is made to another Co- ordinate Bench decision in the case of Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi

SRIDHARAN VENKATANARAYANAN,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Sridharan Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venkatanarayanan Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgaps6316N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A V. Balaji राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

u/s 143(1) dated 22/03/2022 disallowed the claim of Foreign Tax Credit on the ground that the assessee has not filed Form 67 within the prescribed limit i.e. 31st Dec. 2021 in case of the assessee. The assessee filed Form 67 on 6/8/2022 and challenged the order of the CPC before the learned CIT (A) but could not succeed

SURESH KUMAR VOBBILISETTY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1204/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Vobbilisetty, (International Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acgpv5441G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca K Hemalatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/03/2025 आदेश/Order

u/s 143(1) dated 22/03/2022 disallowed the claim of Foreign Tax Credit on the ground that the assessee has not filed Form 67 within the prescribed limit i.e. 31st Dec. 2021 in case of the assessee. The assessee filed Form 67 on 6/8/2022 and challenged the order of the CPC before the learned CIT (A) but could not succeed

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

u/s 144C(5) of the Act, is bad in law and void ab initio so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. TPO/Ld, AO erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 47,92,29,000 on account of adjustment towards

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 263 dated 13.03.2006, the Ld. AO passed order\nunder section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act on 29.03.2006, wherein\nhe estimated 5% profit on the offshore contract receipts of Rs.9,68,78,721/-\nresulting in an addition of Rs.48,43,936/-.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nchallenging