K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessed, it would not be open to Assessing Officer to independently assess any other income which comes to his notice subsequently in course of reopening proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessed, it would not be open to Assessing Officer to independently assess any other income which comes to his notice subsequently in course of reopening proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessed, it would not be open to Assessing Officer to independently assess any other income which comes to his notice subsequently in course of reopening proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessed, it would not be open to Assessing Officer to independently assess any other income which comes to his notice subsequently in course of reopening proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

reassessed, it would not be open to Assessing Officer to independently assess any other income which comes to his notice subsequently in course of reopening proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition

BHARGAVI MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD 6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhargavi Marketers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aapfb3209D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Venkata Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024

TDS u/s 194C of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the above fact of non-receipt of the notice was duly raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Our attention was drawn to the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the 8 Bhargavi Marketers above aspect was captured in para 5.1, which

PRAKASH KANYADARA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

reassessment notices. 4. In these circumstances, the draft assessment order dated 31/03/2022 was treated as infructuous and the learned Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148A(a) of the Act on 31/05/2022 by furnishing the information and material which was relied upon. 5. In response to such notice, assessee submitted that he is a non- resident and employed

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

reassess such income for such assessment\nyear. Further, Section 147 makes it very clear that in\norder to invoke provisions of Section 147 of the Act, there\nshould be income which has escaped assessment, and such\nescapement should be based on fresh tangible material\nwhich comes to the possession of the AO subsequent to the\ncompletion of the original assessment

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

reassess such income for such assessment\nyear. Further, Section 147 makes it very clear that in\norder to invoke provisions of Section 147 of the Act, there\nshould be income which has escaped assessment, and such\nescapement should be based on fresh tangible material\nwhich comes to the possession of the AO subsequent to the\ncompletion of the original assessment

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

reassess such income for such assessment\nyear. Further, Section 147 makes it very clear that in\norder to invoke provisions of Section 147 of the Act, there\nshould be income which has escaped assessment, and such\nescapement should be based on fresh tangible material\nwhich comes to the possession of the AO subsequent to the\ncompletion of the original assessment

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

reassess such income for such assessment\nyear. Further, Section 147 makes it very clear that in\norder to invoke provisions of Section 147 of the Act, there\nshould be income which has escaped assessment, and such\nescapement should be based on fresh tangible material\nwhich comes to the possession of the AO subsequent to the\ncompletion of the original assessment

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1)), HYDERABAD ,, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

TDS. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at Rs(- )5,85,35,991/- as against the income assessed earlier u/s 143(3) at Rs.9,57,41,308/-. 13. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 14. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

TDS. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at Rs(- )5,85,35,991/- as against the income assessed earlier u/s 143(3) at Rs.9,57,41,308/-. 13. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 14. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1)), HYDERABAD ,, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

TDS. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at Rs(- )5,85,35,991/- as against the income assessed earlier u/s 143(3) at Rs.9,57,41,308/-. 13. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 14. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS returns, also remitted GST and filed necessary returns of the significant value. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145 is not correct and bad-in- law. 16. The Ld. GIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO estimating the income

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.54,22,428/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.54,22,428/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. 6. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.54,22,428/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that