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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

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

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

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

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, 4 ITA 260/Hyd/2022 the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year.” The 143(3) proceedings are independent proceedings and the tax liability will be determined on the basis of the same and any relief in that proceedings would result

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

194 Taxman 192 (Bombay). b) Erred in upholding the flawed approach adopted by the Ld. AO in not granting deduction under section 10A of the Act which was allowed in the subsequent year i.e., AY 2006-07 by the Ld. AO, during the regular assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. 7. Erred in upholding the action

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

reassessment or re computation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

reassessment or re computation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding

SOUBHAGYA RANI VADDIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

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

194-IA of the Act. Learned Assessing Officer however, failed to notice this fact and failed to take cognizance of the information available in Form 26AS, thereby missed an opportunity to verify whether this amount represents the business income or income from the capital gains thereby he failed to verify whether tax at the rate

VINOD OJHA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2016-2017) Vinod Ojha, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad-500012. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 057. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahpo3171F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr

reassessment under Section 147, 148 and 148A of the Act in a faceless manner 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the appellant is a commission, cheque discounting agent, thus, estimating at higher rate of 29.26% of the total gross collections is bad in law 6 ITA.No.1231/Hyd./2024 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

MBS IMPES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

194), the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that whether a particular notice is served or not is not a pure question of law. Therefore, the reliance by the assessee on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited is misplaced and the assessee is not entitled to raise the additional grounds

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaccm 2968E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mbs Jeweller Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 3(1), Pan – Aaecm 7050M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022

194), the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that whether a particular notice is served or not is not a pure question of law. Therefore, the reliance by the assessee on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited is misplaced and the assessee is not entitled to raise the additional grounds

ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

194,58,81,644/- by making the following disallowances: i) QIB issue expenses Rs. 1,65,53,975/- ii) Debenture issue expenses Rs. 1,84,69,940/- iii) Debenture issue expenses Rs. 2,07,30,684/- iv) Depreciation claimed on machinery Rs. 6,04,02,542/- Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd., Hyd. v) Depreciation on Aircraft

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 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued on PB 199 PB 194 PB 266 8 Objections for re- 30.04.2015 07.04.2016 07.04.2016 assessment u/s 148 (PB 200-202) (PB 195-197) (PB 267 - 269) filed before the AO on 9 Reasons for re- 15.06.2015 27.06.2016 27.06.2016 assessment issued

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 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued on PB 199 PB 194 PB 266 8 Objections for re- 30.04.2015 07.04.2016 07.04.2016 assessment u/s 148 (PB 200-202) (PB 195-197) (PB 267 - 269) filed before the AO on 9 Reasons for re- 15.06.2015 27.06.2016 27.06.2016 assessment issued

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 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued on PB 199 PB 194 PB 266 8 Objections for re- 30.04.2015 07.04.2016 07.04.2016 assessment u/s 148 (PB 200-202) (PB 195-197) (PB 267 - 269) filed before the AO on 9 Reasons for re- 15.06.2015 27.06.2016 27.06.2016 assessment issued

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

reassessment proceedings on this issue is wholly untenable in law. Since the assessee in the instant case had given all the details in the audited accounts as per Schedule T of the notes to the Accounts and since the reopening was based on the basis of the opinion of audit party on a question of law, therefore, following our observation

PADMINI CHAND, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devismt. Padmini Chand Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan: Aaipc 2110 R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Rajini Chand Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan: Aaipc 2105 J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

194 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee Ms. Padmini Chand and 202 days by the assessee Ms. Rajini Chand. Respective assessee’s have filed applications for condonation of delay and have filed their affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay. The reasons stated by each of the assessee’s are the same. In the affidavits