HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

exemption under Section 54 of the Act, thus, vide his “Show-Cause Notice” (SCN), dated 20.02.2024 called upon him to put forth an explanation that as to why the order of reassessment passed by the AO 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/-.”

reassessment proceedings when there was no failure or omission on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly, all material facts while completing the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 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 and confirming

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/-.”

reassessment proceedings when there was no failure or omission on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly, all material facts while completing the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 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 and confirming

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

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, Section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of Section 147 of the Act, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the AO subsequent to the completion of the original assessment

VEERA REDDY POSHAM,NALGONDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1830/Hyd

147", "148", "250(6)", "80C", "10(13A)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234F", "270A", "132", "142(1)", "69", "115BBE", "292C" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding additions on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80C and exemption u/s 10(13A) due to lack of evidence; and whether reassessment

SANJAY GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2012-13 Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-3(1), Pan: Acgpg 3696 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2021 Order

exemption U/s. 10(38) made by Shri Sanjay Gupta is not correct and there is escapement of income to the extent of Rs. 2,42,12,430/-. xiii. In view of the above facts, there is reason believe that there is an escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 and hence assessment of Shri Sanjay Gupta needs

VEERA REDDY POSHAM,NALGONDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1830/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2022-2023 Veera Reddy Posham, The Acit, Nalgonda – 508 246 Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan Aijpp0376P (Applicant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

147 was invalid in law as: a) The conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction were not satisfied; b) There was no tangible material linking any income escapement to the appellant; c) The notice u/s 148 was issued mechanically based only on search information of other entities (M/s Ira Group) without independent application of mind; and d) Accordingly, the reassessment order

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

exempt income, still the disallowance u/s 14A has been sustained. We find although the assessee has filed detailed written submission before the learned CIT (A) NFAC, however, the learned CIT (A) NFAC has not considered the same properly. It is the submission of the learned Page 7 of 23 ITA Nos 236 to 238 of 2023 Lanco Enterprises

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

exempt income, still the disallowance u/s 14A has been sustained. We find although the assessee has filed detailed written submission before the learned CIT (A) NFAC, however, the learned CIT (A) NFAC has not considered the same properly. It is the submission of the learned Page 7 of 23 ITA Nos 236 to 238 of 2023 Lanco Enterprises

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

exempt income, still the disallowance u/s 14A has been sustained. We find although the assessee has filed detailed written submission before the learned CIT (A) NFAC, however, the learned CIT (A) NFAC has not considered the same properly. It is the submission of the learned Page 7 of 23 ITA Nos 236 to 238 of 2023 Lanco Enterprises

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:

exempt from tax, therefore, the AO was of the view that the said transaction was a colourable device for facilitating an accommodation entry. Thus, the AO, backed by his aforesaid observations, held the LTCG of Rs. 4,15,72,863/- (supra) as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

147 of the Act and issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the present case show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dt. 22.03.2022, consequent order 148A(d) of the Act dt. 20.04.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 21.04.2022 were issued by the ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad who is not the jurisdictional Assessing

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

exemptions u/s 10B and at the same time in short computation of income in respect of ‘taxable units’ by Rs.19,52,26,888/-. As per schedule T- Notes to accounts - point -IV, M/s: Rain CII Holdings Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary company of the assessee, acquired shares in M/s. Juniper Investment LLC, which in turn owned all the outstanding shares

HARIPRIYA TEKUPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TXN - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

exemption u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation

GANGARAM REDDY TEKULAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., INT TAXN- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

exemption u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

Bench: Us:

u/s 147 of the IT Act estimating the income @ 8% on gross receipts of Rs. 2.48 crores. 4. The PCIT's erred in issuing show cause notice dated 13/12/2023 findings that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are arbitrary, perverse, and based on mere conjectures and surmises. 5. The directions issued

THULASI CHAMARTHY,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, CHITTOOR

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

exemption is contrary to law and facts on record. 4. The appellant prays for leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.” 2. Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued

SURESH PRODUCTIONS ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

reassessment proceedings are not in accordance with law in view of the first proviso to section 147 of the I.T. Act 15. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 in case of SMFD for the A.Y 2003-04, he submitted that the Assessing Officer had reproduced clause 2 , 3 and 4 of the agreement