MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

206 2015-16 5,27,90,633 17,94,442 51,22,781 - 6,83,51,062 2016-17 4,55,32,945 1,28,39,052 - 14,20,467 47,71,521 - 6

MSN ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

206 2015-16 5,27,90,633 17,94,442 51,22,781 - 6,83,51,062 2016-17 4,55,32,945 1,28,39,052 - 14,20,467 47,71,521 - 6

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

reassess the total\nincome of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to\nthe previous year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the\nsix years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely,\n2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six\nyears preceding the search assessment year

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

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

206 (Bom.). 5. The Ld. D.R. however, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the time limit prescribed under section 149(3) are not applicable to the assessee’s case as the assessee’s case was consequent to a search under section 132 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the provisions of section 153B are applicable

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

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

206 (Bom.). 5. The Ld. D.R. however, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the time limit prescribed under section 149(3) are not applicable to the assessee’s case as the assessee’s case was consequent to a search under section 132 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the provisions of section 153B are applicable

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

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

206 (Bom.). 5. The Ld. D.R. however, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the time limit prescribed under section 149(3) are not applicable to the assessee’s case as the assessee’s case was consequent to a search under section 132 of the I.T. Act and therefore, the provisions of section 153B are applicable

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

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

reassess the total\nincome of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the\nprevious year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the\nsix years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely,\n2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six\nyears preceding the search assessment year

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

206 | 17,94,442 | 51,22,781 | | 6,83,51,062\n2016-17 | 4,55,32,945 | 1,28,39,052 | 14,20,467 | 47,71,521 | | 6,45,63,985\n2017-18 | 4,12,58,374 | 1,99,12,082 | 57,87,267 | 18,43,047 | 47,61,798 | | 7,35,62,568\n2018-19 | 6

MSN LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

206 | 17,94,442 | 51,22,781 | - | 6,83,51,062 |\n| 2016-17 | 4,55,32,945 | 1,28,39,052 | 14,20,467 | 47,71,521 | - | 6,45,63,985 |\n| 2017-18 | 4,12,58,374 | 1,99,12,082 | 57,87,267 | 18,43,047 | 47,61,798 | 7,35,62,568 |\n| 2018-19 | 6

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

reassess the total\nincome of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to\nthe previous year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the\nsix years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely,\n2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six\nyears preceding the search assessment year

MSN ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

reassess the total\nincome of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to\nthe previous year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the\nsix years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely,\n2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six\nyears preceding the search assessment year

MSN ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

reassess the total\nincome of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the\nprevious year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the\nsix years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely,\n2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six\nyears preceding the search assessment year

MSN ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

reassess the total\nincome of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the\nprevious year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the\nsix years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely,\n2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six\nyears preceding the search assessment year

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

reassess the total\nincome of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to\nthe previous year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the\nsix years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely,\n2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six\nyears preceding the search assessment year

MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

reassess the total\nincome of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to\nthe previous year in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the\nsix years would go up to 2013-14. The search assessment year, namely,\n2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the six\nyears preceding the search assessment year

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

reassessment was not valid. Department filed appeals for both years contesting the decision of CI.T {Appeals} and also that :- 9 -: ITA Nos. 650/H/2015 and others M/s Toshali Cements Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad . the learned CI.T {Appeals} should have decided the case on merits. 11. Hon'ble ITAT in paragraph 10.3 of its order (refereed in the previous paragraph) held "Moreover, from

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

reassessment was not valid. Department filed appeals for both years contesting the decision of CI.T {Appeals} and also that :- 9 -: ITA Nos. 650/H/2015 and others M/s Toshali Cements Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad . the learned CI.T {Appeals} should have decided the case on merits. 11. Hon'ble ITAT in paragraph 10.3 of its order (refereed in the previous paragraph) held "Moreover, from