BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside." 17. Dealing with almost an identical situation pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

reassessment proceedings under this section merely by showing that other income which had been assessed originally was at too high a figure except in cases under section 152

SIVAPOTHULURU VEERAREDDY GADLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings under this section, merely by showing that other income which had been assessed or was at too high a figure except in cases under section 152

SIVA SHANKER REDDY GANDLURU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings under this section, merely by showing that other income which had been assessed or was at too high a figure except in cases under section 152

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

Bench: Us:

152/-, which, thus, resulted to an addition of Rs. 25,63,372/-. 6 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO 6. Also, the AO observed that the assessee company during the subject year was in receipt of interest income of Rs. 92,069/-, which was subjected to deduction of tax at source (TDS) under section 194A

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act is not a denovo assessment and therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed such deduction or allowance of expenditure which it has not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, which in the case of the assessee stood completed prior to the search. Accordingly

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A of the Act is not a denovo assessment and therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed such deduction or allowance of expenditure which it has not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, which in the case of the assessee stood completed prior to the search. Accordingly

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment proceedings under this section merely by showing that other income which had been assesed originally was at too high a figure except in cases under s. 152

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reassessment beyond 4 years is barred by limitation and the allocation of R&D expenses to special units is a mere change of opinion. Hence, the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. 1.4 In this regard, we rely on various case laws as referred to in the case law compendium. Without

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reassessment beyond 4 years is barred by limitation and the allocation of R&D expenses to special units is a mere change of opinion. Hence, the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. 1.4 In this regard, we rely on various case laws as referred to in the case law compendium. Without

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

reassessment beyond 4 years is barred by limitation and the allocation of R&D expenses to special units is a mere change of opinion. Hence, the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. 1.4 In this regard, we rely on various case laws as referred to in the case law compendium. Without

SYED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.355/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Syed Zeeshanuddin Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Bqgps0128A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Validity Of Assessment U/S 153A In Absence Of Any Incriminating Material & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.12,02,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Expenditure By Applying The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The I.T. Act.

152 Taxmann.com 99 (Del.Trib) order dated 17.02.2023, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where an addition has been made on the assessee u/s 153A assessment on the basis of documents found from a separate search from a 3rd party, assessment should have done u/s 153C and not u/s 153A. Accordingly, the addition was directed

SUDHAKER MUNIGETI,ADILABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, ADILABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.471/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2019-2020 Sudhaker Munigeti, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Adilabad – 504 001. Ward-1, Telangana. Adilabad. Pan Acapm9247K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca, A Srinivas राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Malathi B. Sr. Ar

section 143(2) differ on the nature of income escaping assessment, and as such has been issued without application of mind and needs to be quashed 8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs.36,03,333/-, being long term capital gain. 9. Any other grounds which the Assessee

MANNE HAREESH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Manne Hareesh, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad-500 0016 Ward 6(2), Pan Admpm6479L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T.Rama Murthy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R) Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2021 O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Hyderabad Order Dt.10.10.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “ 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals Erred Both On Facts & Provisions Of Law In Appreciating The Fact That Assessing Officer Failed Make Proper Conclusion/ Enquiry Before Making The Addition Made & Passing The Assessment Order.

152/- there exits lack of honesty and bona fides in so far as claiming deduction towards bad debts ignoring the proof submitted establishing their write-off in the books by way of debiting to profit and loss account and further by way of deletion from sundry debtors. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ought not to have resorted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEXT EDUCATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount." 4.6 Therefore, in view of the above facts and law, the Provision for Warranty is not an allowable expenditure since, it is only contingent

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

reassessment proceedings, the assessee would not have declared its income, since the statutory due date for filing of the return had elapsed. Referring to the conduct of the assessee in the past also, he submitted that the assessee was also a non-filer. The ld.DR drew the attention of the bench to para 7 of the penalty order which reads

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

reassessment proceedings, the assessee would not have declared its income, since the statutory due date for filing of the return had elapsed. Referring to the conduct of the assessee in the past also, he submitted that the assessee was also a non-filer. The ld.DR drew the attention of the bench to para 7 of the penalty order which reads