DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

11,306/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.30,16,78,531/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of\nTranstroy India Limited. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer\nmade an addition of Rs.79

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

11,306/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.30,16,78,531/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of\nTranstroy India Limited. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer\nmade an addition of Rs.79

WESTERN UP TOLLWAY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

11. Now coming to the core issue i.e., whether the limitation period for passing the final assessment order is to be calculated as per the provisions of section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act or as per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact that

WESTERN UP TOLLWAY LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

11. Now coming to the core issue i.e., whether the limitation period for passing the final assessment order is to be calculated as per the provisions of section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act or as per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact that

MAHUA BHARATPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

11. Now coming to the core issue i.e., whether the limitation period for passing the final assessment order is to be calculated as per the provisions of section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act or as per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

11. In the present facts for the subject\n assessment years, it is an undisputed position that\nthe pending assessment before the Assessing\nOfficer consequent to return filed under Section\n139(1) of the Act for the subject Assessment years\nhad abated. This was on account of the search\nand as provided in the second proviso to Section\n153A

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

11,306/- and the rest of the deduction claimed by\nthe assessee on account of JVs at Rs.30,16,78,531/- shall\nnot be allowed till the outcome of the case filed by the\nDepartment before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of\nTranstroy India Limited. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer\nmade an addition of Rs.79

SAXON GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

TMEIC INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.898/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Tmeic Industrial Vs. Dy.Cit Systems India Private Limited Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.As, K. C. Devdas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

11. Now coming to the core issue i.e. whether the limitation period for passing the final assessment order is to be calculated as per the provisions of section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act or as per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact that

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD 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 G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

11 NetCracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, Section 153(1) and 153(4) of the Act, that upper limit provided for completion of assessment would also be applicable to the cases where reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the TPO, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted going by the wording of Section 144C

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

11. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had misrepresented the clause (a) of Section 80IA(4). He further submitted that Clause (1) of Section 80IA(4) speaks about the ownership of the enterprise undertaking the development, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility. He further submitted that the word “ownership” is attributable only

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

11. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had misrepresented the clause (a) of Section 80IA(4). He further submitted that Clause (1) of Section 80IA(4) speaks about the ownership of the enterprise undertaking the development, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility. He further submitted that the word “ownership” is attributable only

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

11. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had misrepresented the clause (a) of Section 80IA(4). He further submitted that Clause (1) of Section 80IA(4) speaks about the ownership of the enterprise undertaking the development, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility. He further submitted that the word “ownership” is attributable only

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

11. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had misrepresented the clause (a) of Section 80IA(4). He further submitted that Clause (1) of Section 80IA(4) speaks about the ownership of the enterprise undertaking the development, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility. He further submitted that the word “ownership” is attributable only

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)

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees 14 Interwrap Corp Private Ltd that the outer

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

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)

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

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

11. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) on 30.10.2017, submitted that, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 153(1) read with sub-section (4) of the Act, which

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section