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

31: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & claims on the ground that, as per the provisions of Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any claim in his return of income for any deduction under Section 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head “C- Deductions in respect

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

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,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

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

ACIT 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

C5 INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.332/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) C5 Infra (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Secunderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aafcc2138K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

31 of 38 ITA No 332 of 2023 C5 Infra P Ltd year concerned falling within last six years preceding the search. Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 153-A of the 1961 Act, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132-A and during the search any incriminating material is found, even in case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31) and Section 292CC. 2.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in considering the lifting of the Prohibitory Order (PO) from the residential premises of the appellant's Managing Director on 23.07.2020 as an event extending the limitation under Section 153B in the appellant-company's case, particularly when the said PO was nominal