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

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee's appeal is the validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was re-opened after 4 years from

KAPIL PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LIMITED ,HANUMAKONDA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee's appeal is the validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was re-opened after 4 years from

PITTI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Pitti Holdings Pvt. Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle Pan: Aagcp3824Q 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by Parliament in the form of Explanation 3 consequently provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

reassessments which have already been completed and the assessment orders have been passed, determining the assessee's total income and such orders are subsisting at the time when the search or requisition is made, there is no question of any abatement since no proceedings are pending. In such cases, when the assessment has already been completed, the AO can reopen

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

reassessment proceeding itself was bad in law and the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 in 17 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. pursuance of such invalid initiation is liable to be cancelled. I order accordingly. 9.4 In view of the above discussion, the reopening

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Union Bank Of India, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Erstwhile Andhra Income-Tax, Bank), Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabca 7375C (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Union Bank Of India, Income-Tax, (Erstwhile Andhra Circle – 1(1), Bank), Hyderabad. Hyderabad Pan – Aabca 7375C

reassessment proceeding itself was bad in law and the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 in 17 I.T.A. No. 192/Hyd/2019 & ITA No. 315/Hyd/2019 Union Bank of India,, Hyd. pursuance of such invalid initiation is liable to be cancelled. I order accordingly. 9.4 In view of the above discussion, the reopening

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

reopening of the assessment is not on sound footing. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Act dated 21.03.2019 and the consequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated cannot be sustained. Thus, we quash the reassessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ABIR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafc3608N (Appellant) (Respondent)

reopened after four years from the end of the assessment year. The provisions applicable to the present case are as under: “147. If the (Assessing) officer ( has reason to believe) that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153, assess or reassess

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee's appeal is the validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was re-opened after 4 years from

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee's appeal is the validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was re-opened after 4 years from

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee's appeal is the validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was re-opened after 4 years from

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

reopening of assessment in light of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and held that the Assessing Officer has no 10 power to review, but he has power to reassess

C5 INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.332/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) C5 Infra (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Secunderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aafcc2138K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassess the "total income" for the entire six years' period/block assessment period. The intention does not seem to be to reopen

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting Assessee to reagitate questions which had been decided in the original assessment proceedings. It is only the underassessment which is set aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by "Parliament in the form of Explanation 3 consequently provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by "Parliament in the form of Explanation 3 consequently provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

reassessment was merely a relook of the earlier assessment with a change of opinion and, therefore, the reasons by which the ""Assessing Officer reopens

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

reassessment was merely a relook of the earlier assessment with a change of opinion and, therefore, the reasons by which the ""Assessing Officer reopens