MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

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

reassess the total income of the assessee, provided the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income, represented in the form of “asset”, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI,MARRIPADU, NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, NELLORE

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

Bench: Us:

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act and inapplicable to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Scheme is clearly applicable for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and accordingly, it is only the FAO which can issue the notice 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

115). 5. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271AA and 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee also raised the additional grounds on 19.11.2019 which read

M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in Section 115J that "income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer ................... " 10. The said decision came up for consideration, although in the different context as regards the working out of the depreciation in the decision in Malayala Manorama Co. (supra)., the Apex court upheld the contention

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATHI vs. M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED,, TIRUPATHI

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in Section 115J that "income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer ................... " 10. The said decision came up for consideration, although in the different context as regards the working out of the depreciation in the decision in Malayala Manorama Co. (supra)., the Apex court upheld the contention

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

115 JB (MAT) of the Act. 4. During the course of assessment, it was found that the assessee credited an amount of Rs.35,94,06,780/- to the P&L Account towards the liabilities no longer required written back and submitted that the amount so credited offered to tax in earlier assessments, as they were disallowed and the matter