VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

147 of the I.T.Act on 09.12.2019 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,84,41,136/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither concealed the income nor submitted

POTU JANARDHAN RAO,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings, and also the merits of the addition have been assailed by the assessee appellant before us. The Ground of appeal No.3 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.” As the issue involved in the present appeal remains the same as was there in the aforesaid case i.e Eyegear Optics India Private Limited

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT. Act, 1961 are initiated separately as the income assessed includes income referred to in section 68 of IT Act, 1951. 14. Subject to the above, after due verification of the submissions filed by the assessee, the assessment in the case of the assessee is completed as under : Total income assessed under section

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:

147 of the Act. 8. Reassessing the income based on a mere change of opinion on the existing facts. Eyegear Optics India Private Limited ITA No.1347/Hyd/2024 & 1291/Hyd/2024 9. Holding that the alleged referral fees paid to Doctors is in violation of public policy and regulations formulated by the Medical Council of India (“MCI”). 10. Not understanding that the alleged payments

VENKATESHWAR REDDY ATIGADDA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

147 r.w.s. 144B and penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) erred in confirming the expenses

VENKATESHWAR REDDY ATTIGADA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2016-17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member)

147 r.w.s. 144B and penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) erred in confirming the expenses

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

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

reassessment proceedings beyond the\ntime-limit prescribed under the first proviso to section\n147 of the Act.\n6.\nNot appreciating that the Appellant was not in receipt\nof any of the notices/summons issued, and hence\ncould not adhere to its compliance.\n7.\nNot provided the reasons for him to believe that income\nhas escaped assessment as required under section 147

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

penalty proceedings u/s 270A and 271(1)(b) for non-compliance and misreporting. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment interalia making addition of Rs.2,50,67,943/- towards disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dt.28.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved with such assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before

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

penalty notice for the AY.2012-13. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in invoking the provisions of sec 144 of the Act when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the relevant information and when reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee

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

penalty notice for the AY.2012-13. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in invoking the provisions of sec 144 of the Act when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the relevant information and when reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee

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

penalty notice for the AY.2012-13. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that AO erred in invoking the provisions of sec 144 of the Act when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the relevant information and when reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee

KANAKA CHALAM VOLETY,CALIFORNIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been carried out in the case of the assessee for the said assessment year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, on 24.03.2023 requesting the assessee to furnish his return of income within thirty days. However

SYED GULAM MOHIUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

penalty proceedings u/s 274 rws 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act. 23. The assessee may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the Grounds of objections at any time before or at the time of hearing of the objection.” Page 3 of 16 ITA No 136 of 2023 Syed

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 04.03.2024 was assailed by the assessee firm before him. 16. As we have set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we refrain from adverting to the specific issues based on which the impugned addition has been assailed before us, which, thus

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 04.03.2024 was assailed by the assessee firm before him. 16. As we have set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we refrain from adverting to the specific issues based on which the impugned addition has been assailed before us, which, thus

M/S PRAGATHI GREEN MEADOWS & RESORTS PVT LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l) (c) are not to be initiated. 7. In this result, this appeal is allowed. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following ground : “The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds of Rs.66

ACIT,CIRCLE-16(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S PRAGATI GREEN MEADOWS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l) (c) are not to be initiated. 7. In this result, this appeal is allowed. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following ground : “The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds of Rs.66

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

147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income

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

147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income