ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS reconciliation were filed on 22nd November 2011 and statement of details of party -wise purchases filed on 12th July 2011. At the time of original assessment A.O accepted this expenditure. There are no new facts in the reassessment

KAD ENTERTAINMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2006-07 Kad Entertainment (Ind) P Vs Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 2(1) No.503, Kanchanjunga Hyderabad Complex King Koti Road Hyderabad Pan: Aabck3884G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Laxmi Niwas Sharma, Ar For Revenue : Shri Djp Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2020 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, various information was called for which was furnished by the assessee. The AO perused the same and noticed that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure totalling to Rs.33,13,506/-, but the assessee has not submitted proof of TDS

GIRI POLISETTY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, grounds are considered allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Giri Polisetty Vs. Ito, Hyderabad. Ward – 16(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Ahgpp4748K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T. Rajendra Prasad Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-07-2018 Order Per Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Hyderabad Dated 27.11.2017. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Are That Assessee, An Individual Is Doing Business & Also Has Salary & House Property Incomes. Assessee Filed Return Of Income Admitting Total Income Of Rs. 94,470/- & The Assessment Has Been Completed Assessing The Income At Rs. 12,49,470/-. As A.O Noticed That Assessee Has Claimed Tds On An Amount Of Rs. 9,45,000/- Received From M/S Marble Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd., Which Was Not Disclosed In The Return Filed, He Has Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The It Act After End Of The Four Year Period & Obtained Approval Of The Pr. Cit As Per The Provision Of The Act. In The Reassessment Proceedings On The Reason That No Information Has Been 2 Shri. Giri Polisetty, Hyd. Filed By Assessee, A.O Has Brought The Amount Of Rs. 9,45,000/- To Tax. 3. Before The Ld. Cit(A), Assessee Contested The Issue Of Reopening As Well As Bringing To Tax An Amount Of Rs. 9,45,000/-. It Was The Submission That Assessee Has Received The Amount In The Proprietary Concern Of M/S G.P Infotainment Towards Advertisement & The Same Was Paid To Zee News Ltd., For Telecasting The Advertisement. It Was Submitted That The Total Expenditure On Advertisement Was Of Rs. 10,02,455/-, Which Resulted In A Loss Of Rs. 57,477/-. As The Activity Resulted In Loss, The Assessee Did Not Offer The Same In The Return. It Was Claimed That Corresponding Expenditure Should Be Allowed. Ld. Cit(A) However, Dismissed The Contentions By Stating As Under:

TDS on an amount of Rs. 9,45,000/- received from M/s Marble Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd., which was not disclosed in the return filed, he has initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act after end of the four year period and obtained approval of the Pr. CIT as per the provision of the Act. In the reassessment

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

TDS) under section 194A of the Act. As the assessee company had not filed its return of income for the subject year under section 139(1) of the Act, i.e., within the “due date” of 31/10/2013, the AO made an addition of the subject interest income in its hands. 7. The AO further observed that the assessee company, during

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

VENU GOPAL KARAVADI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Venu Gopal Karavadi, Vs. Ito, Hyderabad. Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Pan- Bdbpk1736J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A Sai Prasad Shri B. Suresh Babu Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-04-2018 Order Per Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Hyderabad Dated 06.10.2016. Apart From The Issues Originally Contested In Appeal I.E Addition U/S Sec. 68 Of The It Act Of Two Deposits Of Rs. 4.45 Lakhs & Rs. 7.5 Laksh In Two Banks, Assessee Also Raised The Additional Grounds That Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 Of The It Act Ceased To Survive As The Officer Has Not Made Any Additions On The Issue On Which The Reasons For Reopening Are Based, Hence, A.O Is Not Justified In Making The Addition On Other Issues. We Have Heard Ld. Counsel & Ld. Dr

reassessment has been made for assessment of income other than the income escaping assessment as per the reasons recorded for formation of belief while initiating proceeding under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Counsel for the appellant, says that upon reading of Explanation-3 to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the learned

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

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS, section-wise, filed before Assessing Officer is placed at page 31 of the paper book. He submitted that copies of the Income tax return acknowledgement and computation of the commission agents filed before Assessing Officer are placed at pages 33 to 59 and pages 89 to 92 of the Paper book respectively. All the evidences thus filed before

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS, section-wise, filed before Assessing Officer is placed at page 31 of the paper book. He submitted that copies of the Income tax return acknowledgement and computation of the commission agents filed before Assessing Officer are placed at pages 33 to 59 and pages 89 to 92 of the Paper book respectively. All the evidences thus filed before

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS, section-wise, filed before Assessing Officer is placed at page 31 of the paper book. He submitted that copies of the Income tax return acknowledgement and computation of the commission agents filed before Assessing Officer are placed at pages 33 to 59 and pages 89 to 92 of the Paper book respectively. All the evidences thus filed before

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS, section-wise, filed before Assessing Officer is placed at page 31 of the paper book. He submitted that copies of the Income tax return acknowledgement and computation of the commission agents filed before Assessing Officer are placed at pages 33 to 59 and pages 89 to 92 of the Paper book respectively. All the evidences thus filed before

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Country Club Hospitality & Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacc 8276 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2022

TDS were paid before the due date of filing of return of income. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the AO has erroneously reopened the case of the assessee

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