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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

2) of Section 152, and Section 115A of the Act, submitted that wherever intended, the legislature has provided express provisions for barring a claim under Chapter VI-A, therefore, when there is no such express bar, the same cannot be read into the statute. He further referring to the argument of the learned senior counsel in respect of filing

POTU JANARDHAN RAO,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

2. Initiating the reassessment proceedings beyond the time-limit prescribed under the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 13. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the “Proviso” to section 251

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

2. Initiating the reassessment proceedings beyond the time-limit prescribed under the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 13. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the “Proviso” to section 251

NATURAL POWER ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

2. The learned CIT (A) erred in not deciding the ground No.2 i.e., the jurisdiction for issue of notice u/s 148A(b), passing order u/s 148A(d) and issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act.” 14. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the “Proviso” to section 251

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

2" that TOURS5 COM, HYDERABAD. was raised before the CIT(A), had specifically assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for initiating the reassessment proceedings. For the sake of clarity, the "Ground of appeal No.2” raised by the assessee company before the CIT(A) is being culled out as under: “1. The Assessing Officer who issued

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

2" that TOURS5 COM, HYDERABAD. was raised before the CIT(A), had specifically assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for initiating the reassessment proceedings. For the sake of clarity, the "Ground of appeal No.2” raised by the assessee company before the CIT(A) is being culled out as under: “1. The Assessing Officer who issued

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CRICLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

2.\nInitiating the reassessment proceedings beyond the\ntime-limit prescribed under the first proviso to section 147\nof the Act.\n13. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the\nFinance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the “Proviso\"\nto section 251

KIRAN DWARAKANATH SEKHAR, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abapt 0359G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kiran Dwarakanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sekhar, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5346D (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings, the assessee vide his letter dated 17/02/2014 submitted a detailed explanation stating that as per the MOA of Clause – 8, there is object clause regarding loans or advances and that the advance received from the said company was for commercial advantage of the company and not the benefit of the directors and the directors were charged interest

NARESH KUMAR SEKHER, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abapt 0359G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kiran Dwarakanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sekhar, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5346D (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings, the assessee vide his letter dated 17/02/2014 submitted a detailed explanation stating that as per the MOA of Clause – 8, there is object clause regarding loans or advances and that the advance received from the said company was for commercial advantage of the company and not the benefit of the directors and the directors were charged interest

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

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), had filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring an income of Rs. 26,04,670/-. 3 Surender Kumar Bhojwani vs. ITO (Int. Taxn-1), Hyd 3. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

251 of the Income Tax Act. Setting aside an invalid assessment for fresh adjudication undermines the fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural law, 3. The Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment without making an effort to identify or bring the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record as mandated under Section 159 of the Income

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

251 of the Income Tax Act. Setting aside an invalid assessment for fresh adjudication undermines the fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural law, 3. The Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment without making an effort to identify or bring the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record as mandated under Section 159 of the Income

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

251 of the Income Tax Act. Setting aside an invalid assessment for fresh adjudication undermines the fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural law, 3. The Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment without making an effort to identify or bring the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record as mandated under Section 159 of the Income