DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80IA(5), the claim could not be granted. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee upholding the order of the CIT. However, in the instant case, the assessee made the claim by filing a revised return within the permissible time as prescribed u/s. 139(5) of the Act. Therefore, the decision

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

reassessment of the entire total income is before the Assessing Officer. Such being the case, there is no reason why a fresh deduction cannot be made. He further referring to provisions of Section 2(45) of the Act submitted that the total income means :12: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & the total amount of income referred to in Section 5

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. Sri Manish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the return under section 153A is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. Sri Manish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the return under section 153A is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. Sri Manish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the return under section 153A is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. Sri Manish Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the return under section 153A is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different

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

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndeny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10ВА\nor under any provision of this Chapter under the Head

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment ... relating to ... the relevant assessment year or years ... pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132. ... shall abate". It goes without saying that since the search operations in this case were initiated on September 2, 2004, it was no longer necessary for this assessee to file his regular return by October 31, 2004 notwithstanding

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment ... relating to ... the relevant assessment year or years ... pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132. ... shall abate". It goes without saying that since the search operations in this case were initiated on September 2, 2004, it was no longer necessary for this assessee to file his regular return by October 31, 2004 notwithstanding

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessment ... relating to ... the relevant assessment year or years ... pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132. ... shall abate". It goes without saying that since the search operations in this case were initiated on September 2, 2004, it was no longer necessary for this assessee to file his regular return by October 31, 2004 notwithstanding

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndeniy such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA\nor under any provision of this Chapter under the Head

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

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\ndenny such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10ВА\nor under any provision of this Chapter under the Head

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

5) and Section 80AC of the Act to\nden y such claims on the ground that, as per the provisions\nof Section 80AC, where the assessee fails to make any\nclaim in his return of income for any deduction under\nSection 10A or Section 10AA or Section 10B or Section 10BA\nor under any provision of this Chapter under

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

Section 148A, thereby saving reassessment proceedings from being declared void. Though Ashish Agarwal dealt with notices issued between April and June 2021, the principle of substance over form is equally applicable here where reassessment proceedings have been substantially carried out and opportunity of hearing was granted.” 27.1. This view of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to the Judgment

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

Section 148A, thereby saving reassessment proceedings from being declared void. Though Ashish Agarwal dealt with notices issued between April and June 2021, the principle of substance over form is equally applicable here where reassessment proceedings have been substantially carried out and opportunity of hearing was granted.” 27.1. This view of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to the Judgment

SANJEEV KUMAR NALAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.669/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Nalam Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward – 1 Pan:Avdpn0497L Adilabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act dated 31.05.2023 is liable to be quashed. 5

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent