EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

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

4), Hyderabad. These cases were centralized with the same AO under section 127 of the Act. Thus, in the case of the Assessing Officer of the searched party and appellant was the same jurisdictional officer. As per the provisions of Section 153B(1)(b) of the Act, read Expressway Services Pvt. Ltd. with third proviso, which is applicable to search

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

127 (Delhi - Trib.) wherein it has been held as under – A. Whether the computation of income of the assessee-society should be in accordance with section 11 or not and whether the filing of audit report along with the return filed in response to notice under section 148 will entitle the assessee for benefit of computation of section

SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

4 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd.. another person who is empowered to receive such notice on his behalf. c: CIT Vs Dr Ala Prakash (IT Appeal no 551 of 2009 September 12 2013 High court of Allahabad - It has been held that since the notice was not issued on the known address of the assessee and there

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order dated 20.12.2006 under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act was adjudicated separately by the Tribunal\nvide order dated 30.11.2015. In that order, the Tribunal directed the Assessing\nOfficer to delete the addition made in respect of offshore contract receipts;\nestimate the income at 10% of the onshore contract works / services receipts;\nand specifically directed not to consider

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DAGUMATI SWATHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

4 - Residual Ground (Ground 16) This being general in nature requires no separate adjudication and is treated as infructuous F. Final Determination: On a comprehensive consideration of the assessment order, the remand report, the submissions of the assessee, and the binding judicial precedents of the jurisdictional High Court, it is held that the reassessment proceedings are invalid and void

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

127] :- 7 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (i) Gateway leasing (P) Ltd - 426 ITR 228 (Bom) (ii) Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd- 422 ITR 337 (Born) (iii) Skyview consultants (P) Ltd - 423 ITR 677 (Del) Pages - 83-127 (PB-Vol.1) (iv) Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd - 395 ITR 677 (Del) (v) SFIL Stock Broking

PALLAPU SRINIVASARAO (HUF),ALMASGUDA vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. On a perusal of the record, we find that as the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter after taking cognizance of the material available on record, concluded that the contentions raised by the assessee

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

4 effect from 01.04.2021, and from that date onwards, the Ld. AO is mandatorily required to follow the procedure prescribed under section 148A of the Act prior to issuance of a notice under section 148. In the present case, it was contended that no procedure as prescribed under section 148A of the Act was followed before issuing the notice under

GUDURI VENKATA RAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

GUDDURI VENKATA RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

PARIGE VENKAT RAM REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

KAUSHIK REDDY PADI ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

SANJAY GARUDAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

127 to 134) upheld the decision of the Tribunal. While upholding the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the court held as following: " We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt.21-08-2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs.65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent