DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring to the decision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring to the decision

MSN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

263 with\nregard to the issue of unexplained investment in the\npurchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, though such\nassessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous\nwhen the Assessing Officer has taken one of the\nplausible views by assessing the same income in the\nassessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y 2020-21.\n6. On the facts and facts and circumstances

PRATHIMA RESORTS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

263 with\nregard to the issue of unexplained investment in the\npurchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, though such\nassessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous\nwhen the Assessing Officer has taken one of the\nplausible views by assessing the same income in the\nassessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y 2020-21.\n6. On the facts and facts and circumstances

DAKSHAYANI HORTICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1333/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands at Kodangal, though such 4 ITA.Nos.1333, 1331 & 1328/Hyd./2024 assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views by assessing the same income in the assessment order passed u/s 153C

ADRIJA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1333/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands at Kodangal, though such 4 ITA.Nos.1333, 1331 & 1328/Hyd./2024 assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views by assessing the same income in the assessment order passed u/s 153C

PRAYAGA GREEN MEADOWS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1333/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands at Kodangal, though such 4 ITA.Nos.1333, 1331 & 1328/Hyd./2024 assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views by assessing the same income in the assessment order passed u/s 153C

MSN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, though such assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views by assessing the same income in the assessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y 2020-21. 6. On the facts and facts and circumstances

PRATHIMA RESORTS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, though such assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views by assessing the same income in the assessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y 2020-21. 6. On the facts and facts and circumstances

PRATHIMA EGGSEL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, though such assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views by assessing the same income in the assessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y 2020-21. 6. On the facts and facts and circumstances

PRATHIMA EGGSEL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, though such assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views by assessing the same income in the assessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y 2020-21. 6. On the facts and facts and circumstances

SPARK VIDYUTH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1322 & 1323/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 with regard to the issue of unexplained investment in the purchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, though such assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views by assessing the same income in the assessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y 2020-21. 6. On the facts and facts and circumstances

SPARK VIDYUTH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

263 with\nregard to the issue of unexplained investment in the\npurchase of lands at Rangareddyguda, though such\nassessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous\nwhen the Assessing Officer has taken one of the\nplausible views by assessing the same income in the\nassessment order passed u/s 153C for A.Y 2020-21.\n6. On the facts and facts and circumstances

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

Bench: Us:

u/s 147 of the IT Act estimating the income @ 8% on gross receipts of Rs. 2.48 crores. 4. The PCIT's erred in issuing show cause notice dated 13/12/2023 findings that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are arbitrary, perverse, and based on mere conjectures and surmises. 5. The directions issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI vs. T RAMA SUBBA REDDY , ADONI

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment held that the total consideration on sale of land was Rs.4,67,20,000/- and not Rs.21.75,000/- as adopted by him in the regular assessment and allowed cost of acquisition of Rs.21,54,067/- without allowing any other claims made by the assessee and passed assessment order on 31.03.2016 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act interalia

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

reassessment vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22-03-2022. 13. Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which reads as under: “263. Revision

KUSHAL DAS DAYARAM MANGHANANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Kushal Das Dayaram Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Manghanani, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Agbpm9633N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. 20.03.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

reassessment by the PCIT. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was issued on 22.03.2019, with a hearing scheduled 3 on 05.04.2019. The assessee sought an adjournment citing the absence of their auditor. After no response, another notice under 142(1) was sent on 30.08.2019 to explain why deemed rental income for AY 2014-15 should not be assessed based

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

reassessment order and directing an examination of the Rs. 397 crore ADS proceeds and the Rs. 1122.00 crore opening balance. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.03.2012 and served on 31.03.2012, requiring the assessee’s appearance on 09.04.2012. 21.1. In response, the assessee submitted his reply on 02.04.2012, stating that he had filed an appeal before the ITAT

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

reassessment order and directing an examination of the Rs. 397 crore ADS proceeds and the Rs. 1122.00 crore opening balance. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.03.2012 and served on 31.03.2012, requiring the assessee’s appearance on 09.04.2012. 21.1. In response, the assessee submitted his reply on 02.04.2012, stating that he had filed an appeal before the ITAT