ANKIT JAIN, HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Us:

reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. (Emphasis supplied) 21. Similarly, the CBDT earlier also vide order dated 06.09.2021, in exercise of its powers under Section 119

ANKIT JAIN,HYDERABAD. vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Us:

reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. (Emphasis supplied) 21. Similarly, the CBDT earlier also vide order dated 06.09.2021, in exercise of its powers under Section 119

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. (Emphasis supplied) 16 Rashid Hussain vs. ACIT 21. Similarly, the CBDT earlier also vide order dated 06.09.2021, in exercise of its powers under Section 119

SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL RANGE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act is answered in the negative holding that the rejection of the said application was bad in law and also was not sustainable factually. b) So far as the relief which has been sought for whether can be granted invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is answered

ADDL. CIT, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act is answered in the negative holding that the rejection of the said application was bad in law and also was not sustainable factually. b) So far as the relief which has been sought for whether can be granted invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is answered

STAYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act is answered in the negative holding that the rejection of the said application was bad in law and also was not sustainable factually. b) So far as the relief which has been sought for whether can be granted invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is answered

SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL RANGE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 119(1) of the Income Tax Act is answered in the negative holding that the rejection of the said application was bad in law and also was not sustainable factually. b) So far as the relief which has been sought for whether can be granted invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is answered

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

section 119 are certainly binding on the Department. [Para 24] For all of the aforementioned reasons, it is found that the Tribunal has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment

MADHAVA REDDY BADDEVOLU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

section 119 are certainly binding on the Department. [Para 24] For all of the aforementioned reasons, it is found that the Tribunal has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

section 119 are certainly binding on the Department. [Para 24] For all of the aforementioned reasons, it is found that the Tribunal has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

section 119 are certainly binding on the Department. [Para 24] For all of the aforementioned reasons, it is found that the Tribunal has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

section 119 are certainly binding on the Department. [Para 24] For all of the aforementioned reasons, it is found that the Tribunal has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

section 119 are certainly binding on the Department. [Para 24] For all of the aforementioned reasons, it is found that the Tribunal has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment

RAGHUNATH REDDY GANGARAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

section 119 are certainly binding on the Department. [Para 24] For all of the aforementioned reasons, it is found that the Tribunal has correctly set out the legal position while holding that the requirement of prior approval of the superior officer before an order of assessment or reassessment

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 of orders prejudicial to revenue. (1)The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner

SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL RANGE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee\nITA

Section\n119 of the Income Tax Act. Further, it is ordered that the\nassessment orders for the Assessment Year 2003-04 to\n2008-09 are illegal and violative of Article 265 of the\nConstitution of India and also void ab initio. The\nrespondent No.1 and respondent No.3 are hereby\ndirected to re-quantify / re-compute the income of the\npetitioner

YADIKI PACS,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above.” 3 Yadiki PACS

ADDL. CIT, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee\nITA

Section\n119 of the Income Tax Act. Further, it is ordered that the\nassessment orders for the Assessment Year 2003-04 to\n2008-09 are illegal and violative of Article 265 of the\nConstitution of India and also void ab initio. The\nrespondent No.1 and respondent No.3 are hereby\ndirected to re-quantify / re-compute the income