BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

160 taxmann.com 32/299 Taxman 21 (SC)/[2024] 6 SCC 267. 81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to "pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned." Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime "after following the procedure

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

160 ITR 1) to contend that in order to invoke the provisions of section 147 read with section 148, essentially two conditions have to be satisfied ie., (a) there should be a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and (b) such escapement of income should be on account of omission or failure on the part of the assessee

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

160 ITR 1) to contend that in order to invoke the provisions of section 147 read with section 148, essentially two conditions have to be satisfied ie., (a) there should be a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and (b) such escapement of income should be on account of omission or failure on the part of the assessee

DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we hold that the Tax Authorities were not justified in apportioning R & D expenditure and ESOP cost to the units which claimed exemption u/s 10B, 80IB and 80IC of the Act

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

160 ITR 1) to contend that in order to invoke the provisions of section 147 read with section 148, essentially two conditions have to be satisfied ie., (a) there should be a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and (b) such escapement of income should be on account of omission or failure on the part 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 towards depreciation on pollution control equipment of Rs. 14,54,327/- and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/-. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising

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 towards depreciation on pollution control equipment of Rs. 14,54,327/- and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/-. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising

SUDHEER PARIMALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.758/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Sudheer Parimala, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 016. Vs. Ward-10(1), Hyderabad. Pan Ahppp7572E Pin - 500 004. Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be treated as the agent of a non-resident under section

GRADIENTE INFOTAINMENT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1637 & 1651 To 1655 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14) Gradiente Infotainment Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14 (5) Pan: Aaccg1241Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

u/s 234B of Rs.4,71,62,160/-. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable Members to decide this appeal according to law.” 17. The brief facts of the case are that

GRADIENTE INFOTAINMENT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1637 & 1651 To 1655 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14) Gradiente Infotainment Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14 (5) Pan: Aaccg1241Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

u/s 234B of Rs.4,71,62,160/-. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable Members to decide this appeal according to law.” 17. The brief facts of the case are that

GRADIENTE INFOTAINMENT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1637 & 1651 To 1655 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14) Gradiente Infotainment Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14 (5) Pan: Aaccg1241Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

u/s 234B of Rs.4,71,62,160/-. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable Members to decide this appeal according to law.” 17. The brief facts of the case are that

GRADIENTE INFOTAINMENT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1637 & 1651 To 1655 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14) Gradiente Infotainment Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14 (5) Pan: Aaccg1241Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

u/s 234B of Rs.4,71,62,160/-. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable Members to decide this appeal according to law.” 17. The brief facts of the case are that

GRADIENTE INFOTAINMENT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1637 & 1651 To 1655 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14) Gradiente Infotainment Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14 (5) Pan: Aaccg1241Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

u/s 234B of Rs.4,71,62,160/-. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable Members to decide this appeal according to law.” 17. The brief facts of the case are that

GRANDIENTE INFOTAINMENT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1637 & 1651 To 1655 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14) Gradiente Infotainment Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14 (5) Pan: Aaccg1241Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

u/s 234B of Rs.4,71,62,160/-. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable Members to decide this appeal according to law.” 17. The brief facts of the case are that

VENSAR CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings. 11. We have heard the Ld. Authorised 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 them to drive home their respective contentions. 7 Vensar Constructions Company Limited vs. ACIT

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

160 (Delhi). 8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation - 1 defines the “relevant assessment year”, the assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than

MSN PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

160 (Delhi). 8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation - 1 defines the “relevant assessment year”, the assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than

MSN ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

160 (Delhi). 8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation - 1 defines the “relevant assessment year”, the assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than

MSN ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

160 (Delhi). 8. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the LD.CIT(A) submitted that the Explanation 1 defines the “relevant assessment year", the assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than