EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 22. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the searched person and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 22. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the searched person and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 22. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the searched person and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be made separately in the name of each person mentioned in such Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a panchanama drawn in relation to one individual at that specific person’s residential premises cannot extend the limitation in the case of another assessee whose search had concluded earlier. In the case of the assessee

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

160/- in respect of transaction of Corporate Guarantee. 6 ITA.No.711/Hyd./2024 6.2. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the corporate guarantee issued to the AEs is in the nature of providing financial assistance and also to discharge the functions as a parental/shareholder obligation and not for any other reason. 6.3. The Ld. AO erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

160/- from Salary & Other Sources. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 04.03.2005. Later, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act and a reassessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

160/- from Salary & Other Sources. The original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 04.03.2005. Later, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act and a reassessment