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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

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

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

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

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

SRI KSSV FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Kssv Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaack9655Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]" Sri KSSV Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Perusal of Section 14A

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.54,22,428/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.54,22,428/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.54,22,428/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.54,22,428/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.54,22,428/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that

G R N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

Bench: Us:

14A provides for the application of sub section (2) also to a situation where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income 9 which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Under the proviso, it has been stipulated that nothing in the section will empower the Assessing Officer

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

14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules.” 5.2 Grounds raised by the revenue in AY 2012-13, which are common in AY 2013-14, are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of exemption claimed

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

14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules.” 5.2 Grounds raised by the revenue in AY 2012-13, which are common in AY 2013-14, are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of exemption claimed

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

14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules.” 5.2 Grounds raised by the revenue in AY 2012-13, which are common in AY 2013-14, are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of exemption claimed

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

14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules.” 5.2 Grounds raised by the revenue in AY 2012-13, which are common in AY 2013-14, are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of exemption claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

14A of the Act and the addition of Rs. 14, 05,809/- is properly made. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal. 6. Assessee is therefore, in this appeal before us stating that the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act for verification of allowance of expenditure is impermissible under law and the learned Assessing Officer cannot assume