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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

133(6) and identified total cash deposits of 3,32,14,750/-, alongside other high-value transactions. In the absence of any compliance from the assessee, the proceedings continued under Section 144 (best judgment assessment), culminating in proposed additions based on unsubstantiated transactions. The non-compliance and failure to file returns, despite substantial financial activity, indicated probable income suppression

KHAJAMOINUDDIN MAHAMMAD, WARANGAL. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, WARANGAL.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not\ncomply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Consequently, the Ld.\nAO issued notice under section 133

BALGURI RAJESHWAR RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 11(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

reassessment order.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "151A", "69A", "115BBE", "133(6)", "149(1)(a)", "144B" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

VIJAYARAGHAVAN LAKSHMI,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, 4 ITA 260/Hyd/2022 the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year.” The 143(3) proceedings are independent proceedings and the tax liability will be determined on the basis of the same and any relief in that proceedings would result

ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SWATHI COMMUNICATIONS, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

133(6) of the Act to State Bank of India on 17.11.2023, 15.12.2023, 17.01.2024, and to Union Bank of India (earlier Andhra Bank) on 17.11.2023 and 17.01.2024. In compliance, part reply along with copies of the bank details of the assessee firm were provided by SBI. On a perusal of the details made available by SBI, the A.O., observed that

SHUBHAM TRADING COMPANY,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., WARD 1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the Branch

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

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

reassessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that, the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 12,90,000/- in his bank accounts and had also earned interest income of Rs. 31,807/- which was not offered to tax. The A.O. called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits and interest income. In response, the assessee submitted that