PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

281 (Bombay) had, inter alia, observed that the time limit for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

reassessment. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd., Vs. ACIT [281 ITR 394] (Del) to submit that explanation 1 and 2 would apply and production of account books or other evidence from which the AO could with due diligence discover material evidence would not necessarily

VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI,MARRIPADU, NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, NELLORE

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

Bench: Us:

281 (Bombay) had, inter alia, observed that the time limit for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

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

281 (Bombay) had, inter alia, observed that the time limit for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

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

281 (Bombay) had, inter alia, observed that the time limit for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

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

281 (Bombay) had, inter alia, observed that the time limit for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action

MADURAI TUTICORIN EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

281 (Bombay) had, inter alia, observed that the time limit for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action

KRISHNAVENI KOKKULA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

281 (Bombay) had, inter alia, observed that the time limit for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

281 ITR 444 (Madras). The Hon’ble High Court had observed that where the assessee had filed a return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, but no notice under section 143(2) was issued after filing of the said return of income, then, the same is a violation of the mandatory provisions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

281, holding further that the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (supra) reiterates the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.188,00,33,012/- which was claimed in the return of income, filed in response to notice u/s.153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURES LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

281, holding further that the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (supra) reiterates the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.188,00,33,012/- which was claimed in the return of income, filed in response to notice u/s.153A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

281, holding further that the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (supra) reiterates the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.188,00,33,012/- which was claimed in the return of income, filed in response to notice u/s.153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

281, holding further that the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (supra) reiterates the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.188,00,33,012/- which was claimed in the return of income, filed in response to notice u/s.153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

281, holding further that the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (supra) reiterates the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.188,00,33,012/- which was claimed in the return of income, filed in response to notice u/s.153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING & INFRASTURCTURE LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

281, holding further that the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (supra) reiterates the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.188,00,33,012/- which was claimed in the return of income, filed in response to notice u/s.153A

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ABIR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafc3608N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148. Though action was initiated within the four year time limit, it was found that it was based on mere change of opinion and reassessment proceedings was, therefore, not justified. 23 I.T.A. No. 2068/Hyd/2018 Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. (2) In Consolidated and Fin vest Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 281

BIKARAM PUSHPENDER,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

reassessment introduced by the CBDT. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 15.04.2022 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both documents clearly bear the name and designation of the JAO. It was submitted that the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022

SANZYME PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

reassessment introduced by the CBDT. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 15.04.2022 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both documents clearly bear the name and designation of the JAO. It was submitted that the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022