BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section

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

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

45 involving a sum of\nRs.156,08,30,022/-\nout of the total claim of\nRs.191,80,22,209/- are not entitled for deduction\nu/sec.80IA of the Act since the Department has filed an\nappeal before the Hon'ble High Court Andhra Pradesh in the\ncase of Transtroy India Limited on identical issue which is\npending for adjudication. The Assessing

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

45 involving a sum of\nRs.156,08,30,022/-\nout of the total claim of\nRs.191,80,22,209/-\nare not entitled for deduction\nu/sec.80IA of the Act since the Department has filed an\nappeal before the Hon'ble High Court Andhra Pradesh in the\ncase of Transtroy India Limited on identical issue which is\npending for adjudication. The Assessing

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

45 involving a sum of\nRs.156,08,30,022/-\nout of the total claim of\nRs.191,80,22,209/-\nare not entitled for deduction\nu/sec.80IA of the Act since the Department has filed an\nappeal before the Hon'ble High Court Andhra Pradesh in the\ncase of Transtroy India Limited on identical issue which is\npending for adjudication. The Assessing

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

45 involving a sum of\nRs.156,08,30,022/-\nout of the total claim of\nRs.191,80,22,209/-\nare not entitled for deduction\nu/sec.80IA of the Act since the Department has filed an\nappeal before the Hon'ble High Court Andhra Pradesh in the\ncase of Transtroy India Limited on identical issue which is\n\npending for adjudication

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. MIKKILINENI NARENDRA KUMAR, SERILINGAMPALLY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, International Taxation – 1 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Nenpk4757J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated for the A.Y. 2016-17 and a notice was issued on 30.03.2021. In response to this notice, assessee has not filed any return but submitted the information stating that he has not entered/executed any sale deed during the relevant A.Y. 2016-17 has only entered into a modified development Agreement cum general power

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

45,89,000/- in Canara Bank, cash withdrawals of 3,65,500/-, and TCS on liquor purchases amounting to 1,74,11,245/-. The total transactions amounted to 4,75,04,970/-. The assessee did not file a return of income for the relevant year, prompting concerns about income escaping assessment. Numerous notices were issued under Sections

SUBBALAKSHMAMMA PINNAMA,THUMMALAGUNTA,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

45(5A) was not applicable for the year and that, the assessee still had adequate time up to 31.03.2018 to file the return. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that payment of part of the tax before reopening does not cure the default nor prevent levy of penalty for under-reporting. He held that, the case fell squarely under Section

RAJU SURYANARAYANA ALLURI,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed his ROI on 24.03.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,89,600/-. After going through the submission of the assessee, the Ld. AO contended that the transfer of property take place in the year of JDA and the assessee is liable for capital

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case