ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI vs. PALLAM REDDY SREELAKSHMI, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion was vague. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) relying in its own judgment in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) had held as under:- "2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial

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 was directed to furnish the details of the claim of irretrievably lost amounts and to justify the claim that the money was actually lost and there was no accrued income on this amount. In response, the assessee filed a vague reply in tappal, stating as follows: "In respect of debits obtaining by way of advances

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 was directed to furnish the details of the claim of irretrievably lost amounts and to justify the claim that the money was actually lost and there was no accrued income on this amount. In response, the assessee filed a vague reply in tappal, stating as follows: "In respect of debits obtaining by way of advances

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

undisclosed income. The requirement of notice under sec. 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. 6 .. Sec.292BB is a rule of evidence, which validates the notice in certain circumstances. The newly inserted sec. 292BB provides that where an assessee has appeared in any proceedings or co-operated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. INDRANI PRASAD , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

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

undisclosed income. The requirement of notice under sec. 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. 6 .. Sec.292BB is a rule of evidence, which validates the notice in certain circumstances. The newly inserted sec. 292BB provides that where an assessee has appeared in any proceedings or co-operated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. VINSRI INFOTECH, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

undisclosed income". The assessing officer estimated the income from the business at 40% of the receipts declared by the appellant. In doing so, he has taken into account the receipts of the assessment years also in respect of which the assessments have become final before the search operations. The assessing officer treated the expenditure on books purchased as capital expenditure

M/S VINSRI INFOTECH,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyblock Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 M/S Vinsri Infotech, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabfv6806E Appellant Respondent & Block Period: 1996-97 To 2001-2002 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinsri Infotech, Income-Tax, Circle – Hyderabad. 9(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aabfv 6806 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Y. Ratnakar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivasu Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

undisclosed income". The assessing officer estimated the income from the business at 40% of the receipts declared by the appellant. In doing so, he has taken into account the receipts of the assessment years also in respect of which the assessments have become final before the search operations. The assessing officer treated the expenditure on books purchased as capital expenditure

C5 INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.332/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) C5 Infra (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Secunderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aafcc2138K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassess the "total income" taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed

AVINASH SURYADEVARA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

reassess the total income of the aforesaid period which includes disclosed and undisclosed income. Therefore, the new provisions has given

AVINASH SURYADEVARA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

reassess the total income of the aforesaid period which includes disclosed and undisclosed income. Therefore, the new provisions has given

AVINASH SURYADEVARA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

reassess the total income of the aforesaid period which includes disclosed and undisclosed income. Therefore, the new provisions has given

BATTA ESHWARAMMA,R.R.DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed and appeal of revenue are dismissed

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

reassess the total income of the aforesaid period which includes disclosed and undisclosed income. Therefore, the new provisions has given

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

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

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 22. 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 searched person and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn

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

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

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 22. 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 searched person and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn

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

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

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 22. 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 searched person and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn

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