EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,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

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,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

MAMATHA GUBBALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

4. Considering the huge pendency of appeals and disputed tax\ndemands at the Commissioner (Appeals) stage, it is proposed that the\ncases where assessment order was passed as best judgement case\nunder section 144 of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals) shall be\nempowered to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to\nthe Assessing Officer for making a fresh

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

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

Section, or\nin Sec. 120 (4) of the Act, the Board may by notification in the\nofficial gazette direct that for the purpose of this Act, by income\ntax authority exercising and performing the functions, in relation\nto the said person or clause of persons shall be such authority as\nmay be specified in the notification. She further submitted that

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

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

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,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

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

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

reassessment proceedings would be\ngoverned by the law prevailing prior to 01.04.2021.\n9.\nWe are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the Revenue. On\nperusal of the above e-mail communication by the revenue, we find that the\ntime of sending of the email is clearly mentioned as 03:53:49 AM on\n01.04.2021, and the time of delivery

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

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,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

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,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

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,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

GAVIREDDYGARI HARIKISHORE REDDY,ANANTHAPUR 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