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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

6 submitted that there is a separate Schedule (Schedule 80IA) for claiming deduction under Section 80IA, in which the assessee has rightly claimed deduction under the said provision. If the intention of the Legislature was to bar such claim of deduction, there is no reason why a separate Schedule has been provided for in the returns of income

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(6

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

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

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

HEMALATHA CHERVU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1966/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Hemalatha Chervu Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15 (1) Pan:Aodpc8304C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Akash Deshpande, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 06/11/2025, For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16. The Page 1 Of 11

133(6) of the Act and observed that the assessee has made huge cash deposits of Rs.59,85,508/- into her bank account and also earned interest income of Rs.36,310/-. Since the assessee has not filed any information, the A.O passed the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, on 18/03/2022 and determined the total income

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)

6 Peda Subba Rao into consideration, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dt. 09-04-2022 for the AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation, since the last date for issuing the said notice is 31-03-2022 only as per the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act and hence the impugned assessment order