ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. INDRANI PRASAD , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return. is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

INDRANI PRASAD ,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return. is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

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, the Ld. AO rejected the books\nof accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) and estimated profit of\nRs.1

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

145 is not correct and bad-in- law. 16. The Ld. GIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO estimating the income of the assessee at an Ad hoc percentage of 8% of turnover is 3 Bilwa Infrastructure Limited vs. ITO un-reasonable and not based on comparative results in the similar line of business

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

Bench: Us:

reassessment was within the prescribed time and squarely falls within the framework of section 147, Therefore, the action of the AO in reopening the assessment is held to be valid and in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds of appeal pertaining to this issue are dismissed and not allowed. 5.2. The appellant has challenged against the addition

MBS IMPES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

reassessment.” 16. From the language employed in section 292BB of the Act, it emerges that a notice would be deemed to be valid in the three circumstances provided therein, namely, where the assessee has participated in the proceedings it would not be permissible for him to raise objection that (i) the notice was not served upon

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

reassessment.” 16. From the language employed in section 292BB of the Act, it emerges that a notice would be deemed to be valid in the three circumstances provided therein, namely, where the assessee has participated in the proceedings it would not be permissible for him to raise objection that (i) the notice was not served upon

SRESTA NATURAL BIOPRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

145 of the Act. 5 ITA.No.711/Hyd./2024 5.6. The Ld. TPO ought to have appreciated the fact that sales to AE includes a substantial profit element with interest aspect being embedded in it and therefore, interest on receivables cannot be coined as a separate "international transaction' as envisaged u/s 92B of the Act. 5.7. The Ld. AO ought

VICTORY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Victory Electricals Ltd., V Dcit,Circle-17(2) Plot No.8, Survey No.855, S. Signature Towers Ida, Medchal, Kondapur Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad Hyderabad-501 401

145 without recording the same in the accounts, then, such debt or part thereof shall be allowed in the previous year in which such debt or part thereof becomes irrecoverable and it shall be deemed that such debt or part thereof has been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts for the purposes of this clause.] [Explanation

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

145 of the Act and ought to have deleted the estimated income. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO estimating the income of the assessee at an Ad hoc percentage of 8% of turnover is un-reasonable and not based on comparative results in the similar line of business. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

145 of the Act. 1.3. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the outstanding receivables are accrued from the sale of services rendered to the AE during the normal course of business and hence it cannot be equated to the term 'capital financing' as interpreted in section 92B of the Act. 1.4. Ought to have appreciated the fact that

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

145 credits u/sec.68 of the IT Act 8. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 24.12.2018, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submissions consisting of copies of revised computation of income, trading and Profit & Loss account and cash flow statement. The learned

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

145 credits u/sec.68 of the IT Act 8. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 24.12.2018, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submissions consisting of copies of revised computation of income, trading and Profit & Loss account and cash flow statement. The learned

MADHUSUDAN REDDY PASHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

145 credits u/sec.68 of the IT Act 8. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 24.12.2018, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submissions consisting of copies of revised computation of income, trading and Profit & Loss account and cash flow statement. The learned

RAYUDU LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.725/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Rayudu Laboratories The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Central Circle-2(4), Pin – 500 036. Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aabcr8021N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar

reassessment with a proper hearing. Additionally, a stay on the existing demand until the resolution of this appeal is requested. 9. For these reasons and such other reasons that may be submitted at the time of hearing of the case, the appellant prays that the respected Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad: i. Quash the Orders passed u/s.250

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

reassessment proceedings, wherein it was stated\nthat though the assessee company had purchased the power plant but\nhad not put to use the same for its commercial operation and not\ngenerated any income, therefore, it was not entitled for claiming\ndepreciation on the same, Page 145-147 of APB. Also, it was submitted\nby the Ld. CIT-DR that

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

145 taxmann.com 37(SC). 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the reasons given by the Ld.CIT(A) to sustain the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of the Act submitted that, although the assessee is having multiple properties, but except one house, remaining properties are commercial properties

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

145 taxmann.com 37(SC), wherein it was held that where at the time original assessment u/s 143(3), specific queries were raised by Assessing Officer, which were duly answered by assessee company and thereafter assessment order was passed, it was not open for revenue to reopen assessment on same issue and, thus, impugned reassessment proceedings initiated on mere change