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 proceedings were based on assumption of jurisdiction through the issue of notice under section 143 (2) of the Act, which was not validly served on the assessee, we hold that the assessing officer was patently wrong in completing the assessment without effecting the service of notice in accordance with section 282

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 proceedings were based on assumption of jurisdiction through the issue of notice under section 143 (2) of the Act, which was not validly served on the assessee, we hold that the assessing officer was patently wrong in completing the assessment without effecting the service of notice in accordance with section 282

B.M. LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS, ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

282 provides that the Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which the communication referred to in sub-section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person therein named. Pursuant to this provision, rule 127 has been inserted by the IT (Eighteenth Amendment) Rules, 2015 w.e.f

SOUBHAGYA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. 13. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT annulling the assessments for AY 2001-02 to 2004-05 cannot be said to be erroneous”. :- 12 -: 10.2.i. Similar principles were also laid down in the case of in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Vs. Asst. Director

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2013-14) 1. M/S. Desu Enterprises, Ongole (A.P.) Pan: Aagfd1940C 2. Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam. Pan: Αιτpg3044K (Appellants) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. (Respondents) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr & Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Desu Enterprises & Shri Thalla Srisailam Goud (“The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.02.2024 & 09.04.2024 For The A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

2 and 3, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. In this regards the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that although the notice under section 148 of the Act bears the date 31.03.2021, the same was, in fact, issued and communicated to the assessee only

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2 and 3, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. In this regards the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that although the notice under section 148 of the Act bears the date 31.03.2021, the same was, in fact, issued and communicated to the assessee only

LATE S.SURESH LEGAL HEIR BY S.MAHESH ,SECUNDRABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

282 of the IT Act, therefore, ought to have held the order as invalid order. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the notice dated 8.3.2016 is served in the name of a dead person, therefore, ought to have held that the same is an invalid notice, further erred in not holding the order as an invalid

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

2. That, without prejudice to the additional ground no.1, even if the extended period of 6 years as prescribed u/s. 149(1)(b) of Act is taken 6 Peda Subba Rao into consideration, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dt. 09-04-2022 for the AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation, since the last date for issuing

NEELAKANTA REDDY MUDDAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-11(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Neelakanta Reddy Muddam V Ito,Ward-11(1) F.No.202, 2Nd Floor S. Room No.1006, Kunapa Reddy’S Castle Singature Towers Towers, Anjaneya Nagar, Opp. Botanical Garden Moosapet, Kothaguda Hyderabad-522 002 Hyderabad-500 084

section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for making the impugned reassessment is void ab initio and liable to be annulled. 8, Without prejudice to ground No.2: notice underSeetion.142(1) dated 24.11.2017 calling for a return of income for AY 2010-11 from the appellant is absolutely illegal and consequently void ab initio. Consequently

INDUR AVENUES AND FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

282/-. AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2019 and determined total income at Rs.2,02,80,111/- by making additions towards finance charges, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and estimated interest on redeemable debentures. 16. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT

INDUR AVENUES AND FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

282/-. AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2019 and determined total income at Rs.2,02,80,111/- by making additions towards finance charges, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and estimated interest on redeemable debentures. 16. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT

INDUR DEVELOPERS AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

282/-. AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2019 and determined total income at Rs.2,02,80,111/- by making additions towards finance charges, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and estimated interest on redeemable debentures. 16. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT

SHARATH KUMAR REDDY SAREDDY,WANAPARTHY, MAHABUB NAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1096/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Sharath Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sareddy, Wanaparthy Ward – 1 Mahbubnagar Mahbubnagar Pan:Hpwps0712H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/Order

282 Taxman 274(S.C) and submitted that when the amendment provides a specific date of its applicability, then the same cannot be treated as retrospective in nature. He has then relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd reported 367 ITR 466 (S.C) that the Hon'ble Supreme

MURARI SUBHA RAO,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 (Through Video Conference) Murari Subba Rao, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 13(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadpm 2285N (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. We find that the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment on the ground that a) there was a violation of service of notice u/s 282 of the IT Act within the reasonable time on the assessee, b) there was a violation of service of notice u/s 282 of the Act on the wrong address

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

282) (Andhra Pradesh) and the case of CIT-III Vs. Sri Rao Subba Rao (HUF) in ITTA No.254 of 2014, dt.15- 04-2014 and held that the assumption of jurisdiction without having recorded the reasons in the case of searched person is invalid in Sri Padmavathi Venkateswara Constructions in ITA No.47/Viz/2019 dated 26-06-2019. For the sake of clarity

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

282) (Andhra Pradesh) and the case of CIT-III Vs. Sri Rao Subba Rao (HUF) in ITTA No.254 of 2014, dt.15- 04-2014 and held that the assumption of jurisdiction without having recorded the reasons in the case of searched person is invalid in Sri Padmavathi Venkateswara Constructions in ITA No.47/Viz/2019 dated 26-06-2019. For the sake of clarity