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

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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

133 of the Act. 9.3 Further, before us, the ld. DR also filed written submissions in support of revenue’s case, which are as under: “2. It is humbly submitted that the assessee is engaged in the following activities: (i) Research & Development on germplasm leading to development of hybridd seeds, which consists of two stages viz., (a) fixation of desired

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

133 of the Act. 9.3 Further, before us, the ld. DR also filed written submissions in support of revenue’s case, which are as under: “2. It is humbly submitted that the assessee is engaged in the following activities: (i) Research & Development on germplasm leading to development of hybridd seeds, which consists of two stages viz., (a) fixation of desired

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED,R.R.DIST. vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

133 of the Act. 9.3 Further, before us, the ld. DR also filed written submissions in support of revenue’s case, which are as under: “2. It is humbly submitted that the assessee is engaged in the following activities: (i) Research & Development on germplasm leading to development of hybridd seeds, which consists of two stages viz., (a) fixation of desired

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD vs. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED, R.R. DIST, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

133 of the Act. 9.3 Further, before us, the ld. DR also filed written submissions in support of revenue’s case, which are as under: “2. It is humbly submitted that the assessee is engaged in the following activities: (i) Research & Development on germplasm leading to development of hybridd seeds, which consists of two stages viz., (a) fixation of desired

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