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

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

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