DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80IA(5), the claim could not be granted. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee upholding the order of the CIT. However, in the instant case, the assessee made the claim by filing a revised return within the permissible time as prescribed u/s. 139(5) of the Act. Therefore, the decision

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

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to deny such :31: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & claims on the ground that, as per the provisions of Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any claim in his return of income for any deduction under Section 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA or under any provision

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)

5 on pages 3 to 6 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. The assessee has also challenged the notice issued by the A.O. i.e. contrary to Section 151A r.w. Section 144B of the Act and argued that, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is bad in law and consequently the assessment order passed

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

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndeny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10ВА\nor under any provision of this Chapter under the Head

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment ... relating to ... the relevant assessment year or years ... pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132. ... shall abate". It goes without saying that since the search operations in this case were initiated on September 2, 2004, it was no longer necessary for this assessee to file his regular return by October 31, 2004 notwithstanding

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment ... relating to ... the relevant assessment year or years ... pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132. ... shall abate". It goes without saying that since the search operations in this case were initiated on September 2, 2004, it was no longer necessary for this assessee to file his regular return by October 31, 2004 notwithstanding

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment ... relating to ... the relevant assessment year or years ... pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132. ... shall abate". It goes without saying that since the search operations in this case were initiated on September 2, 2004, it was no longer necessary for this assessee to file his regular return by October 31, 2004 notwithstanding

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndeniy such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA\nor under any provision of this Chapter under the Head

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\nden y such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA\nor under any provision of this Chapter under

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

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndenny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10ВА\nor under any provision of this Chapter under the Head

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. Sri Manish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the return under section 153A is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. Sri Manish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the return under section 153A is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. Sri Manish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the return under section 153A is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. Sri Manish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the return under section 153A is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

5. Discussion and Decision: The present appeal is directed against the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 30.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer (AO), wherein total income was assessed at Rs. 1,40,65,678/- as against NIL income declared by the appellant. The additions broadly relate to: (i) profit estimation

VANASOWRABHA ASSOCIATES,WARANGAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G

5. Learned DR before us vehemently argued that since the assessee had not filed the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer was duly justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. We are unable to comprehend ourselves to accept these arguments of the learned DR in view

GANGARAM REDDY TEKULAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., INT TAXN- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

5. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 26.06.2024 on 6 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd./2024 the ground that, against the directions of DRP the appeal lies with the Income Tax Appellate

HARIPRIYA TEKUPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TXN - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

5. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 26.06.2024 on 6 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd./2024 the ground that, against the directions of DRP the appeal lies with the Income Tax Appellate

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

139; b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made: Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years: Provided further that assessment