PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; (b) an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; (b) an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; (b) an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; (b) an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; (b) an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154

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 order dated 20.12.2006 under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act was adjudicated separately by the Tribunal\nvide order dated 30.11.2015. In that order, the Tribunal directed the Assessing\nOfficer to delete the addition made in respect of offshore contract receipts;\nestimate the income at 10% of the onshore contract works / services receipts;\nand specifically directed not to consider

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

154 was passed on 19.08.2021, revising the purchase adjustment to Rs. 49,86,32,000/-. 6. Thereafter, the A.O. passed a draft assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act on 21.09.2021, determining the total income at Rs. 69,97,35,729/-, by incorporating the above transfer pricing adjustments. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before

SUDHEER PARIMALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.758/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Sudheer Parimala, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 016. Vs. Ward-10(1), Hyderabad. Pan Ahppp7572E Pin - 500 004. Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order

154 were invalid because the same were beyond the period of limitation." 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the second issue raised by the petitioner is also required to be answered in the affirmative. 21. Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment

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

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

154-172] (i) ITOV Virat Credit and Housing (P) Ltd, ITAT, (Del) ITA-89/Del/2012 (order Dt 9/2/2018) I Pages-154-172 (ii) S. Goyendra lime chemical Ltd -231 Taxman 73 (MP) (iii) Central India Electric Supply Co Ltd V ITO 51 DTR 51 7.6 No full Satisfaction by AO:- :- 9 -: ITA No.. 497/Hyd/2019 and CO 16/H/2019 Coastal Projects

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bombay), held that where the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice beyond the period of three years, approval was required to be taken as per provisions of amended section 151 from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

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

reassess the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13, issued notice under section 148 of the Act, to which the assessee responded by requesting that the original return of income may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 5. By order dated 12/12/2017 passed under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

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

reassess the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13, issued notice under section 148 of the Act, to which the assessee responded by requesting that the original return of income may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 5. By order dated 12/12/2017 passed under section

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment or re-computation, as envisaged in Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant in this regard three orders passed by Hon’ble ITAT Benches viz., (i) ACIT Vs. Narendra N. Thacker [(2016) 45 ITR Trib 188 (Kol)]; (ii) unreported judgement in ACIT Vs. Sajjan Singh and (iii) unreported order in Arun Bansal, Delhi Vs. ACIT, Delhi

RAMESH BABU BEJJALA,KOTHAGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTHAGUDEM

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

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

reassessment order are vitiated in lew. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,17,000/- made under Section 63A of the Act by the Assessing Officer without any independent verification or reconciliation. The authorities failed to refute the explanations provided with cogent evidence rendering the addition unsustainable. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1876 & 1884/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 31/10/2025, For The Asst. Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

3 companies put together for all assessment years. Out of such unaccounted income, an amount of Rs.26.22 crores pertains to the assessee company for all the A.Ys. For the A.Y 2020-21, the assessee company admitted Rs.1.82 crores during the course of search proceedings. However, while filing the return of income in response to notice under section

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1876 & 1884/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Vilas Polymer (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaacv9854A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 31/10/2025, For The Asst. Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. Since Identical Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

3 companies put together for all assessment years. Out of such unaccounted income, an amount of Rs.26.22 crores pertains to the assessee company for all the A.Ys. For the A.Y 2020-21, the assessee company admitted Rs.1.82 crores during the course of search proceedings. However, while filing the return of income in response to notice under section

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

Bench: Us:

3) of Section 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

VIJAYARAGHAVAN LAKSHMI,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu

section 154 were also brought to the notice of the ld.CIT(A). 3 ITA 260/Hyd/2022 4. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the 154 order passed by the AO by observing as under:- 6. In the instant case, notice u/s. 153A was issued to the appellant and no return

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)

3. The Assessing Officer took us to the consequential assessment proceedings. It emerges that the twin assessments herein; both dt.29.2.2016 inter alia - hold that the assessee had received impugned huge sum from M/s. Global City Projects P. Ltd. (now known as M/s. New Cyberabad City Projects P. Ltd. “NCCPL”) to the tune of Rs.125.15 Crores towards land development cost without