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

147 or 263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring

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

147 or 263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring

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

u/s 153A, received by the assessee on 27.03.2006, the assessee reported to have filed the return of income on 26.04.2006 and claimed a loss that the assessee intended to carry forward in the subsequent year. However, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did not expressly record that the losses in the relevant A.Y were to be caried forward

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

u/s 153A, received by the assessee on 27.03.2006, the assessee reported to have filed the return of income on 26.04.2006 and claimed a loss that the assessee intended to carry forward in the subsequent year. However, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did not expressly record that the losses in the relevant A.Y were to be caried forward

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

u/s 153A, received by the assessee on 27.03.2006, the assessee reported to have filed the return of income on 26.04.2006 and claimed a loss that the assessee intended to carry forward in the subsequent year. However, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did not expressly record that the losses in the relevant A.Y were to be caried forward

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

loss returned by the assessee company was scaled down to Rs.4,00,31,066/-. 5. Subsequently, the AO based on information available with his office that the assessee company had debited an amount of Rs.4.17 crores (Approx.) towards referral fees paid to doctors, which was not an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act, reopened its case u/s 147

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who granted partial relief to the assessee. While deciding the appeal, ground no.2 raised by the assessee with respect to “2. The action of the Assessing Officer is illegal and barred by limitation as per law”. The ld.CIT(A) had decided ground nos.1 to 3 collectively, against the assessee, at page

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who granted partial relief to the assessee. While deciding the appeal, ground no.2 raised by the assessee with respect to “2. The action of the Assessing Officer is illegal and barred by limitation as per law”. The ld.CIT(A) had decided ground nos.1 to 3 collectively, against the assessee, at page

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:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 28.04.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the specified authority, therefore, the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

u/s 143(3), the question of change of opinion does not arise. Further, what is required at the time of issueance of notice under section 147 is reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, but not the established act of escapement of income. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion

THE PRAKASAM DISTRISET POLICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 09.04.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the prescribed authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DAGUMATI SWATHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri AP Babu, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) at the threshold of hearing of the appeal has assailed the quashing of the assessment by the CIT(A), inter alia, on the ground that the same was based on the notice issued under section 148 of the Act issued

KILARU VENKATA SATISH,KRISHNA DIST vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us), Which Reads As Under:

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 11.04.2022 had been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the prescribed authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 08/12/2023

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

Bench: Us:

u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable. 14.The Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the Ld. AO erred in making the above additions to the income of the assessee without considering the loss made in the AY 2014-15 and brought forward losses. 15. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or

LAXMI VENKATA KRISHNA RICE CORPORATION,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

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)

Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29/07/2022 had 6 Laxmi Venkata Krishna Rice Corporation vs. ITO been issued by the A.O. without obtaining the approval of the prescribed authority, therefore the said notice and the consequential assessment framed by him vide his order passed under Section

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 objected to the reopening of the assessment which the AO rejected by way of passing a reasoned order. After providing due opportunity to the assessee and 4 B. Ramalinga Raju considering the partial information furnished by the assessee on 20.07.2010, along with the facts available on record, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section

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 objected to the reopening of the assessment which the AO rejected by way of passing a reasoned order. After providing due opportunity to the assessee and 4 B. Ramalinga Raju considering the partial information furnished by the assessee on 20.07.2010, along with the facts available on record, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section

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)

carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 7. Shri P. Murali Mohan