BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. b) No evidence of any new tangible material has been referred to by the Ld. AO in the reasons for re-opening the assessment and hence, it is a mere change of opinion, and the Ld. AO does not have any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. c) There

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

147) (PB 107-177) (PB 240-244) expenses filed before the AO on 5 Date of regular 30.11.2012 26.12.2013 23.02.2015 assessment proceedings (PA178-198) (PB 178 - 193) (PB 245-265) u/s 143(3) 6 Four year time limit for 31.03.2013 31.03.2014 31.03.2015 issue of notice u/s 148 elapsed on 7 Notice for reassessment 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued

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

147) (PB 107-177) (PB 240-244) expenses filed before the AO on 5 Date of regular 30.11.2012 26.12.2013 23.02.2015 assessment proceedings (PA178-198) (PB 178 - 193) (PB 245-265) u/s 143(3) 6 Four year time limit for 31.03.2013 31.03.2014 31.03.2015 issue of notice u/s 148 elapsed on 7 Notice for reassessment 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued

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

147) (PB 107-177) (PB 240-244) expenses filed before the AO on 5 Date of regular 30.11.2012 26.12.2013 23.02.2015 assessment proceedings (PA178-198) (PB 178 - 193) (PB 245-265) u/s 143(3) 6 Four year time limit for 31.03.2013 31.03.2014 31.03.2015 issue of notice u/s 148 elapsed on 7 Notice for reassessment 30.03.2015 03.03.2016 03.03.2016 u/s 148 issued

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 147 especially when the then AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 23/11/2011.” 12. The CIT(A) admitted the above additional ground relying on the judgments, inter-alia, NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383. 13. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that original assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act was made

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 147 especially when the then AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 23/11/2011.” 12. The CIT(A) admitted the above additional ground relying on the judgments, inter-alia, NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383. 13. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that original assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act was made

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 147 especially when the then AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 23/11/2011.” 12. The CIT(A) admitted the above additional ground relying on the judgments, inter-alia, NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383. 13. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that original assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act was made

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 147 especially when the then AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 23/11/2011.” 12. The CIT(A) admitted the above additional ground relying on the judgments, inter-alia, NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383. 13. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that original assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act was made

CHANDINI DUVVURI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

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

u/s 148, by the jurisdictional officer would render the subsequent assessment null and void, as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in their latest case of Prakash Pandurang Patil in Special Leave Petition ( Civil) Diary No.39689 of 2025. 6. Any other ground that may be raised during the appellate proceedings with the kind prior permission from

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

reassessment proceedings, wherein it was stated that though the assessee company had purchased the power plant but had not put to use the same for its commercial operation and not generated any income, therefore, it was not entitled for claiming depreciation on the same, Page 145-147 of APB. Also, it was submitted by the Ld. CIT-DR that

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

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

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

195(2) of the Act. (b) Not appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant that the payments made to recipient/s are not chargeable to tax in India and accordingly, taxes were not liable to be deducted on the same and have erred in concluding that the Appellant is required to deduct TDS on payment for business support service expenses

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

195 (SC) 6. PCIT Vs. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd (2022) 143 taxmann.com 209. 7. PCIT Vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd (2021) 129 taxmann.com 87 (SC). 8. Per contra, the ld.AR had submitted that in the Profit and Loss account, the assessee had only debited a total sum of Rs.68,26,342/- as expenses and out of the said amount

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

reassessment or re-computation, as envisaged in Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act. The Appellant in this regard three orders passed by Hon’ble ITAT Benches viz., (i) ACIT Vs. Narendra N. Thacker [(2016) 45 ITR Trib 188 (Kol)]; (ii) unreported judgement in ACIT Vs. Sajjan Singh and (iii) unreported order in Arun Bansal, Delhi Vs. ACIT, Delhi

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

u/s 40A(3) or u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. In this regard a reference may kindly be made to the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer in the case of the sub contractors. Invariably, the assessments in the cases of the sub-contractors were completed on an estimate basis which clearly indicate that there is no requirement

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

u/s 40A(3) or u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. In this regard a reference may kindly be made to the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer in the case of the sub contractors. Invariably, the assessments in the cases of the sub-contractors were completed on an estimate basis which clearly indicate that there is no requirement

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

u/s 40A(3) or u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. In this regard a reference may kindly be made to the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer in the case of the sub contractors. Invariably, the assessments in the cases of the sub-contractors were completed on an estimate basis which clearly indicate that there is no requirement

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

u/s 40A(3) or u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. In this regard a reference may kindly be made to the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer in the case of the sub contractors. Invariably, the assessments in the cases of the sub-contractors were completed on an estimate basis which clearly indicate that there is no requirement

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

u/s 40A(3) or u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. In this regard a reference may kindly be made to the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer in the case of the sub contractors. Invariably, the assessments in the cases of the sub-contractors were completed on an estimate basis which clearly indicate that there is no requirement

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

u/s 40A(3) or u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. In this regard a reference may kindly be made to the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer in the case of the sub contractors. Invariably, the assessments in the cases of the sub-contractors were completed on an estimate basis which clearly indicate that there is no requirement