THE PRAKASAM DISTRISET POLICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

reassessment order dated 16.01.2024 also is bad in law.” (emphasis supplied by us) 20. We find that the Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order had not only observed that in the case of the assessee before them, i.e., for AY 2018-19 the specified authority for granting approval under section 151 of the Act was the Principal Chief

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

184 2021-22 5,50,26,236 3,24,31,368 2022-23 4,74,93,505 2,73,44,540 2023-24 3,46,39,767 4,25,14,726 Total Rs.65,91,24,940 42,28,32,928 3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

184 2021-22 5,50,26,236 3,24,31,368 2022-23 4,74,93,505 2,73,44,540 2023-24 3,46,39,767 4,25,14,726 Total Rs.65,91,24,940 42,28,32,928 3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

YELLAIAH SETTY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Yellaiah Setty, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 5, Pan – Agqps 2236 Q Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Smt. S. Narasamma Date Of Hearing: 31/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

184 (Guj.) held as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that at the time of search, no incriminating material was found with respect to the assessment year 2001-02 to 2003-04. Only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during the search could be brought to tax. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition. With regard

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings by the AO is not in accordance with law. Similar views were also expressed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Digi1 Electronics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2023] 148 taxmann.com 184 (Bombay) wherein it was held as under : “9. We have heard the learned Counsel at length

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. 7) Whether on the facts and cirCl1mstances of the case, and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in this case already original :- 3 -: ITA Nos.186

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. 7) Whether on the facts and cirCl1mstances of the case, and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in this case already original :- 3 -: ITA Nos.186

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. 7) Whether on the facts and cirCl1mstances of the case, and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in this case already original :- 3 -: ITA Nos.186

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

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

reassessment proceedings the assessee cannot claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment and it is not open to the assessee to seek a review of concluded items. 7) Whether on the facts and cirCl1mstances of the case, and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in this case already original :- 3 -: ITA Nos.186

TOSHALI CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

184 and 185/Hyd/2015. (copy submitted herwith) For the said two assessment years, the A.O completed regular assessments u/s.143{3) and allowed depreciation on the amount of Rs. 11,00,81,342/- being deferred sales tax liability taken over by assessee as part of cost of assets purchased by it but reflected as good will in its books. Later

TOSHALI CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

184 and 185/Hyd/2015. (copy submitted herwith) For the said two assessment years, the A.O completed regular assessments u/s.143{3) and allowed depreciation on the amount of Rs. 11,00,81,342/- being deferred sales tax liability taken over by assessee as part of cost of assets purchased by it but reflected as good will in its books. Later

TOSHALI CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

184 and 185/Hyd/2015. (copy submitted herwith) For the said two assessment years, the A.O completed regular assessments u/s.143{3) and allowed depreciation on the amount of Rs. 11,00,81,342/- being deferred sales tax liability taken over by assessee as part of cost of assets purchased by it but reflected as good will in its books. Later

TOSHALI CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

184 and 185/Hyd/2015. (copy submitted herwith) For the said two assessment years, the A.O completed regular assessments u/s.143{3) and allowed depreciation on the amount of Rs. 11,00,81,342/- being deferred sales tax liability taken over by assessee as part of cost of assets purchased by it but reflected as good will in its books. Later

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

reassessment have been raised by the Assessee for the first time before the Hon ITAT and it was neither raised before the AO nor before the TA CIT (A). Therefore, the Additional Grounds of Appeals filed on 11.01.2017 are not admissible. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard: > Brooke Bond India Ltd (1991) 59 Taxmann

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

reassessment have been raised by the Assessee for the first time before the Hon ITAT and it was neither raised before the AO nor before the TA CIT (A). Therefore, the Additional Grounds of Appeals filed on 11.01.2017 are not admissible. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard: > Brooke Bond India Ltd (1991) 59 Taxmann

NEC-NCC-MAYTAS JV ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

184/-; assessment years, respectively pertaining to execution of the alleged contract works forming part of M/s. Bhima Lift Irrigation Scheme in Mahaboob Nagar District, Telangana State (erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh). Learned counsel invited our attention to the tribunal’s first round 432/Hyd/2016; 2137/Hyd/2017 & 496, 1129 to 1132/Hyd/2018 remand order dt.8.3.2013 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.517/Hyd/2010

NEC-NCC MAYTAS JOINT VENTURE, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

184/-; assessment years, respectively pertaining to execution of the alleged contract works forming part of M/s. Bhima Lift Irrigation Scheme in Mahaboob Nagar District, Telangana State (erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh). Learned counsel invited our attention to the tribunal’s first round 432/Hyd/2016; 2137/Hyd/2017 & 496, 1129 to 1132/Hyd/2018 remand order dt.8.3.2013 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.517/Hyd/2010

NEC-NCC-MAYTAS JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

184/-; assessment years, respectively pertaining to execution of the alleged contract works forming part of M/s. Bhima Lift Irrigation Scheme in Mahaboob Nagar District, Telangana State (erstwhile undivided Andhra Pradesh). Learned counsel invited our attention to the tribunal’s first round 432/Hyd/2016; 2137/Hyd/2017 & 496, 1129 to 1132/Hyd/2018 remand order dt.8.3.2013 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.517/Hyd/2010