INDRANI PRASAD ,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

45 days instead of 15 days for compliance. Such' notice is prescribed under Rule 12(lA) which in turn prescribes Form 2Bfor block return. 14) Section 158 BC(b) is a procedural provision for making a regular assessment applicable to Block assessment as well. Section 158 BC(c) would require the assessing officer to compute the income as well

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

3 thereto, as it stood prior to substitution vide Finance Act 2021”. On the contrary, Section 153A deals with the assessment or reassessment of ‘total income’, as against assessment or re- assessment of such income i.e., income :44: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & escaping assessment u/s 147 of the Act, and therefore, the Revenue cannot rely upon the decision

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

3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the 43 ITA.No.1527 & 1528/Hyd./2025 authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages: a. Section 148A(a) - to conduct any enquiry

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

45[or sub-section (3)J of section 74, 46[or sub-section (3) of section 74AJ, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) 47[***J, a return of loss in the prescribed form48 and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE -1(2) , HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

45[or sub-section (3)J of section 74, 46[or sub-section (3) of section 74AJ, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1) 47[***J, a return of loss in the prescribed form48 and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this

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

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed on this ground alone

45 6. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued u/sec.148 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is invalid and liable to be quashed and consequently, the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is also liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

3. 2014-15 6,883 10,32,45,000 4,32,38,423 6,00,06,577 4. 2013-14 6,538 9,80,70,000 2,97,59,919 6,83,10,081 5. 2012-13 399 59,85,000 28,43,000 31,42,000 TOTAL

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings, the assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment which the AO rejected by way of passing a reasoned order. After providing due opportunity to the assessee and 4 B. Ramalinga Raju considering the partial information furnished by the assessee on 20.07.2010, along with the facts available on record, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

reassessment proceedings, the assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment which the AO rejected by way of passing a reasoned order. After providing due opportunity to the assessee and 4 B. Ramalinga Raju considering the partial information furnished by the assessee on 20.07.2010, along with the facts available on record, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

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

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

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

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

45(AP) (ii) Rajbhushan Om Prakash Dixit 416 ITR 89(Bom) (iii) Audhut Timblo and another 420 ITR 62(Bom) (iv) Smt.Mira Ananta Naik -183 Taxmann 40(Bom) PB-l to 58 (Caselaws) (v) Sunill

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

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

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