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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

70 (SC)”. 3. Also, we find that the assessee/respondent has filed a letter, dated 02/06/2025, wherein he has sought for admission of a fresh grounds (additional) No.2 to support the order of the CIT(A), which reads asunder: "In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the fact that more than 3 vears lapsed from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. STYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

70,860/- 5. On perusal of the record, the AO observed that the assessee company had claimed to have earned long term capital gain (LTCG) during the subject year, as under : (i) LTCG of Rs.4,15,72,863/- from the sale of shares of Steel Exchange of India Ltd. for Rs.6,16,16,600/- during

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

reassess ought to be restricted to only incriminating material unearthed during the course of search after following the due procedure. It is also relevant to refer to the decision in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399/293 Taxman 141 (SC), no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating evidence

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

reassess ought to be restricted to only incriminating material unearthed during the course of search after following the due procedure. It is also relevant to refer to the decision in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399/293 Taxman 141 (SC), no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating evidence

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

reassess ought to be restricted to only incriminating material unearthed during the course of search after following the due procedure. It is also relevant to refer to the decision in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399/293 Taxman 141 (SC), no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating evidence

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

70, rejected the legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O. on the issue of limitation as provided under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 292CC of the Income Tax Act, held that

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

70, rejected the legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O. on the issue of limitation as provided under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 292CC of the Income Tax Act, held that

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

70, rejected the legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O. on the issue of limitation as provided under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 292CC of the Income Tax Act, held that

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

70, rejected the legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O. on the issue of limitation as provided under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 292CC of the Income Tax Act, held that

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

70, rejected the legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O. on the issue of limitation as provided under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 292CC of the Income Tax Act, held that

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

70, rejected the legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O. on the issue of limitation as provided under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 292CC of the Income Tax Act, held that

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

70, rejected the legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O. on the issue of limitation as provided under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, including Section 292CC of the Income Tax Act, held that