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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming Rs.54,22,428/- out of Rs.67,85,773/- towards the finance cost debited to the development expenditure without properly considering the fact that the expenditure was incurred in connection with and in relation to the business activity carried on by the appellant. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the trade payables

KAPIL FOOD AND STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD 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

2 income for AY 2013-14 on 24.09.2013, declaring a total income of Rs.33,66,340/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 07-04-2017 on the group of Kapil Consultancy Services Ltd and in which, the assessee was also covered. The assessment has been subsequently re-opened under

KAPIL PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LIMITED ,HANUMAKONDA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

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

2 income for AY 2013-14 on 24.09.2013, declaring a total income of Rs.33,66,340/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 07-04-2017 on the group of Kapil Consultancy Services Ltd and in which, the assessee was also covered. The assessment has been subsequently re-opened under

KAPIL INFRA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA 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

2 income for AY 2013-14 on 24.09.2013, declaring a total income of Rs.33,66,340/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 07-04-2017 on the group of Kapil Consultancy Services Ltd and in which, the assessee was also covered. The assessment has been subsequently re-opened under

KASUSALYA SHELTERS 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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act particularly when the assessment proceedings were initiated because of the search and seizure operations. 3. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the Assessing Officer should initiated proceedings u/s 153C

KASUSALYA SHELTERS 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

2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act particularly when the assessment proceedings were initiated because of the search and seizure operations. 3. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the Assessing Officer should initiated proceedings u/s 153C

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD 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 first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee's appeal is the validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was re-opened after 4 years from

KAUSALYA AGRO FORMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD 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 first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee's appeal is the validity of re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was re-opened after 4 years from