PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

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

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) 21. Similarly, the CBDT earlier also vide order dated 06.09.2021, in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act introduced certain exceptions / exclusions to Section 144B of the Act. The said order dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder: Section 144B(2) of the Income

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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 of the Act introduced certain exceptions / exclusions to Section 144B of the Act. The said order dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder: Section 144B(2) of the Income

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 of the Act introduced certain exceptions / exclusions to Section 144B of the Act. The said order dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder: Section 144B(2) of the Income

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 of the Act introduced certain exceptions / exclusions to Section 144B of the Act. The said order dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder: Section 144B(2) of the Income

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)

2) Words and expressions used herein and not defined, but defined in the Act, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Act. 3. Scope of the Scheme:— For the purpose of this Scheme,— (a) assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 of the Act, (b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

119, 120, 124 & 127\nof the Act, and other provisions of the Act, submitted that the\nterm A.O would include JCIT after the amendment of Sec. 2 Sub\nSec. 7A by the Finance Act 2007 with retrospective effect from\n01.06.1994 which is evident from the notification issued by the\nCBDT u/s 120(1) & (2) of the Act, and also

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

Bench: Us.

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

b) Cooper Corporation Pvt Ltd., Vs DCIT, reported in ITA No. 866/PN/2014. (c) CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd., reported 179 taxman.com 326 (SC) (d) Gati Limited Vs ITO, in ITA No. 1325/Hyd/2015. (e) Crane Software International Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 741/Ban/2010. 6.2 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below

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

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

b). [Para 15] That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-A) which empowers an Assessing Officer to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. [Para 16] It is therefore not correct

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

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

b). [Para 15] That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-A) which empowers an Assessing Officer to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. [Para 16] It is therefore not correct

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

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

b). [Para 15] That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-A) which empowers an Assessing Officer to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. [Para 16] It is therefore not correct

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

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

b). [Para 15] That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-A) which empowers an Assessing Officer to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. [Para 16] It is therefore not correct

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

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

b). [Para 15] That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-A) which empowers an Assessing Officer to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. [Para 16] It is therefore not correct

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

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

b). [Para 15] That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-A) which empowers an Assessing Officer to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. [Para 16] It is therefore not correct

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

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

b). [Para 15] That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the context of section 142 (2-A) which empowers an Assessing Officer to direct a special audit. The obtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. [Para 16] It is therefore not correct

NAGABHUSHANAM & CO,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.779/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Nagabhushanam & Co., Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aadfn6796P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Nagabhushanam & Co. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad-1 (“Ld. Pcit”), Dated 04.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

reassessment order. It was contended that there was no error in the order of the Ld. AO. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) to submit that two conditions must be satisfied before invoking section 263 i.e. (i) the order of the AO must

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

SRIDHARAN VENKATANARAYANAN,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Sridharan Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venkatanarayanan Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgaps6316N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A V. Balaji राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

119(2)(b), such Form No.67 can't be taken into consideration and the relief u/s. 91 cannot be allowed by the Appellate Authority even if other conditions are fulfilled. ln view of the Page 5 of 11 ITA 32 of 2025 Sridharan Venkatanarayanan above, the appellant is not eligible for relief under section 91 and the Ground

AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

119(2)(b), such Form No.67 can't be taken into consideration and the relief u/s. 91 cannot be allowed by the Appellate Authority even if other conditions are fulfilled. ln view of the above, the appellant is not eligible for relief under section 91 and the Ground No. 1 is dismissed.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the assessee