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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch

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

u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\n\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch

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

u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\n24\nITA. Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017\nAnd ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

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

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

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under subsection (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or subsection (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under subsection (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or subsection (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

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

147 in course of any reassessment. In other words, when a search is initiated under Section 132 of the Act, the assessee is not required to file the assessee's return till such time that the assessee receives a notice under Section 153A(1)(a) thereof. Once such notice is received the liability fastens on the assessee to file

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

147 in course of any reassessment. In other words, when a search is initiated under Section 132 of the Act, the assessee is not required to file the assessee's return till such time that the assessee receives a notice under Section 153A(1)(a) thereof. Once such notice is received the liability fastens on the assessee to file

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

147 in course of any reassessment. In other words, when a search is initiated under Section 132 of the Act, the assessee is not required to file the assessee's return till such time that the assessee receives a notice under Section 153A(1)(a) thereof. Once such notice is received the liability fastens on the assessee to file

RASHID HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under subsection (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or subsection (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

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

Bench: Us:

u/s 139(1), despite being a company, TDS credits under sections 194A and 194C aggregating over Rs. 3.2 crores and 8 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO time deposits of Rs. 19.54 lakhs were reflected in the 26AS statement, but remained unaccounted. The information clearly constitutes "tangible material" justifying reopening as held in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills

ANKIT JAIN, HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Us:

1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003 [but on or before the 31st

ANKIT JAIN,HYDERABAD. vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003 [but on or before the 31st

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 153C for A.Ys 2000-2001 to 2005-06. The Judgment pertains to pre amended Section 153C. However, there is an amendment to Section 153C w.e.f 1-10-2014 which reads as under: ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 [(1)] [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 153C for A.Ys 2000-2001 to 2005-06. The Judgment pertains to pre amended Section 153C. However, there is an amendment to Section 153C w.e.f 1-10-2014 which reads as under: ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 [(1)] [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 153C for A.Ys 2000-2001 to 2005-06. The Judgment pertains to pre amended Section 153C. However, there is an amendment to Section 153C w.e.f 1-10-2014 which reads as under: ITA Nos.34 to 36/Hyd/2021 [(1)] [Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer