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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (Supra) has held in Para 10 to 14 as under: “10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident

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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (Supra) has held in Para 10 to 14 as under: “10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident

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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (Supra) has held in Para 10 to 14 as under: “10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident

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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (Supra) has held in Para 10 to 14 as under: “10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident

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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (Supra) has held in Para 10 to 14 as under: “10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident

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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (Supra) has held in Para 10 to 14 as under: “10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident

ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as not sustainable and the consequent disallowances being treated as infructuous, the disallowances

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

disallowed the amount u/s 69 of the Act when the assessee failed to explain the source. Further, the ld. DR submitted that there was tangible material available with the AO in the form of investigation report mentioned in the reasons recorded. He, therefore, submitted that there is no change of opinion as argued by the ld. AR of the assessee

M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 issuing notice u/s 148 on 25/06/2010. In the reassessment, AO assessed the income at Rs. 22,68,35,848/- by making disallowance

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 issuing notice u/s 148 on 25/06/2010. In the reassessment, AO assessed the income at Rs. 22,68,35,848/- by making disallowance

JVR RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Jvr Retails Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1) C/O. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 Pan : Aaccv9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V.Joshi Appeared For P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021 Passed U/S. 263 By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad Relating To A Y 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In The Business Of Retails & Manufacturing Of Jewelry. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,97,390/- On 08.09.2012 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 21.02.2013. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment By Recording Reasons As Per Provisions Of Section 147. The Reasons To Believe Which Was Put Up Before The Ld.Pcit-2 For Approval & Which Has Been Reproduced By The Ao In The Body Of The Assessment Order Read As Under:-

disallowance to the extent of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- 8. the Ld.Pr.CIT erred in issuing 263 order on the issues other than those which are subject matter of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and accordingly the proceedings ought to be annulled. 9. The Ld.Pr.CIT erred in issuing 263 order on an assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 153A and further, in case, any incriminating material is found as a result of search, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the Assessing Officer would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income, taking into consideration the incriminating material found during the course of search and other material available with the Assessing Officer, including the income declared

S HARINATH CHOWDARY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

reassessment proceedings. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) wherein it was held that if the AO does not make any addition of income for which the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, he cannot assess any other income

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

reassessment order that the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are taken up in the appellant's case only to verify the disallowability

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

reassessment order that the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are taken up in the appellant's case only to verify the disallowability

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

reassessment order that the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are taken up in the appellant's case only to verify the disallowability

PITTI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Pitti Holdings Pvt. Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle Pan: Aagcp3824Q 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

disallowances of expenditure are not sustainable in law and liable to be deleted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has followed

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/-.”

147 of the Act. It was the contention that if the reopening is done by the Revenue beyond a period of 4 years, then satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax is necessary. 4.4. The assessee after receipt of notice u/s 148 had also received notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In response thereto, assessee furnished

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/-.”

147 of the Act. It was the contention that if the reopening is done by the Revenue beyond a period of 4 years, then satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax is necessary. 4.4. The assessee after receipt of notice u/s 148 had also received notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In response thereto, assessee furnished