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

184 CTR\n(ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of\nSection 153A of the Act coupled with Circular No.7 of\n2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is\ninitiated under Section 132 of the Act, the AO shall issue\na notice to such person for six assessment years and\nassess or reassess the total income

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

184 CTR\n(ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of\nSection 153A of the Act coupled with Circular No.7 of\n2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is\ninitiated under Section 132 of the Act, the AO shall issue\na notice to such person for six assessment years and\nassess or reassess the total income

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

184 CTR\n(ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of\nSection 153A of the Act coupled with Circular No.7 of\n2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is\ninitiated under Section 132 of the Act, the AO shall issue\na notice to such person for six assessment years and\nassess or reassess the total income

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

184 CTR\n(ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of\nSection 153A of the Act coupled with Circular No.7 of\n2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is\ninitiated under Section 132 of the Act, the AO shall issue\na notice to such person for six assessment years and\nassess or reassess the total income

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

184\n2021-22\n5,50,26,236\n3,24,31,368\n2022-23\n4,74,93,505\n2,73,44,540\n2023-24\n3,46,39,767\n4,25,14,726\nTotal\nRs.65,91,24,940\n42,28,32,928\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

184\n2021-22\n5,50,26,236\n3,24,31,368\n2022-23\n4,74,93,505\n2,73,44,540\n2023-24\n3,46,39,767\n4,25,14,726\nTotal\nRs.65,91,24,940\n42,28,32,928\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

184\n2021-22\n5,50,26,236\n3,24,31,368\n2022-23\n4,74,93,505\n2,73,44,540\n2023-24\n3,46,39,767\n4,25,14,726\n\nTotal\nRs.65,91,24,940\n42,28,32,928\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

184\n2021-22\n5,50,26,236\n3,24,31,368\n2022-23\n4,74,93,505\n2,73,44,540\n2023-24\n3,46,39,767\n4,25,14,726\nTotal\nRs.65,91,24,940\n42,28,32,928\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment

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/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice u/s. 147

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/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice u/s. 147

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice u/s. 147

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

147, Section 148, Section 149, 151 and Section 153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80-IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

147, Section 148, Section 149, 151 and Section 153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80-IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

147, Section 148, Section 149, 151 and Section 153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80-IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with

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

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

147, Section 148, Section 149, 151 and Section 153 …………”. The same sufficiently suggests that once Section 139 itself is not applicable in an instance involving Section 153A proceedings, all other consequences flowing therefrom in case of an assessee having not claimed Section 80-IA deduction in section 139(1) return are deemed to have been rendered non-operative. Coupled with

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 B) On verification of the computation of total income, P & L account and Balance Sheet, it is observed that the assessee company has debited an amount of Rs.66,15,891/- towards loss on sale of assets. However, the assessee had added back the same as inadmissible in the computation of total income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. PAVITRAVATI GREENFIELDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Pavitravati Greenfields Income-Tax, P. Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecp0216E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/01/2022

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”, on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of C1T(A} is erroneous on both facts and law. :- 2 -: M/s Pavitra Greenfields Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 2. The CIT(A} has erred in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case

TOSHALI CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment was not valid. Department filed appeals for both years contesting the decision of CI.T {Appeals} and also that :- 9 -: ITA Nos. 650/H/2015 and others M/s Toshali Cements Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad . the learned CI.T {Appeals} should have decided the case on merits. 11. Hon'ble ITAT in paragraph 10.3 of its order (refereed in the previous paragraph) held "Moreover, from