VENU GOPAL KARAVADI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Venu Gopal Karavadi, Vs. Ito, Hyderabad. Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Pan- Bdbpk1736J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A Sai Prasad Shri B. Suresh Babu Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-04-2018 Order Per Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Hyderabad Dated 06.10.2016. Apart From The Issues Originally Contested In Appeal I.E Addition U/S Sec. 68 Of The It Act Of Two Deposits Of Rs. 4.45 Lakhs & Rs. 7.5 Laksh In Two Banks, Assessee Also Raised The Additional Grounds That Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 Of The It Act Ceased To Survive As The Officer Has Not Made Any Additions On The Issue On Which The Reasons For Reopening Are Based, Hence, A.O Is Not Justified In Making The Addition On Other Issues. We Have Heard Ld. Counsel & Ld. Dr

249) Madras HC by placing reliance on the judgement of SC in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) held that the assessing officer was barred from initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 when the time for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) had not expired. However, taken a different view in the case of ITO Vs. K M Pachiyappan

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. INDRANI PRASAD , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

249 (Delhi) and the recent decision in Shri Jai Shiva Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. (supra) hold likewise. 23. With the legal position being abundantly clear that a reassessment order cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice being issued by the AO to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act, the ITAT

INDRANI PRASAD ,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

249 (Delhi) and the recent decision in Shri Jai Shiva Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. (supra) hold likewise. 23. With the legal position being abundantly clear that a reassessment order cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice being issued by the AO to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act, the ITAT

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

249 (MP) (cited supra), after considering the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee therein in connection with the execution of a mortgage deed to secure a loan was revenue expenditure as there was no regulation regarding the application of capital subsidy to any specific purpose. 6. In the case

VANASOWRABHA ASSOCIATES,WARANGAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G

147 of the Act. We are unable to comprehend ourselves to accept these arguments of the learned DR in view of the fact that when the return of income is not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer is entitled as per the statute to issue notice under section

LAXMI DHARAMSOTH,MANCHYA THANDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

Bench: Us:

reassessment stating that the AO had reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment. But on what reasons the learned AD has opted to re-open the assessment and the copy of the approval taken is not provided to the Appellant. 3. The Appellant has been under medical care since 2013 for the Chronic Kidney related alignments

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

249(3) of Act and ought to have contended the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicated the grounds on merit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the basis of merits, rather than dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the delay is due to reasons that are beyond the control

COGNIZANCE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.344/Hyd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year 2013-2014 | M/S. Cognizance | Constructions Private | Limited, Hyderabad. | Pin – 500 075. Telangana. | Pan Aadcc1366M | (Appellant) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ca Srinivas Maddury राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The

U/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 is issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Hyderabad. However, the assessment is taken up and completed by Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, which is against the laid legal principle that that assessment cannot be completed under borrowed satisfaction. 5. Ld.AO/NFAC erred in issue of notice under section

DEEPTI SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,HINDUPUR vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI,

Bench: Us:

u/s. 234A & 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1.11 The appellant seeks your leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Apart from that, the assessee society has raised an additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: “1. The Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) erred

SULTANA RAFAT, ,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARIMNAGAR, KARIMNAGAR

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment Under Section 148 is served on 18.8.2014. Orders might have been passed on or before 31.12.2015 as per Section 153(2). The orders are passed on 30.3.2016 beyond time limit specified in Section 153(2). The orders passed are barred by limitation specified in Section 153(2) and liable to be quashed”. 3. Before us, Ld.AR heavily stressed

SHAIK ABDUL AZIZ,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARIMNAGAR

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment Under Section 148 is served on 18.8.2014. Orders might have been passed on or before 31.12.2015 as per Section 153(2). The orders are passed on 30.3.2016 beyond time limit specified in Section 153(2). The orders passed are barred by limitation specified in Section 153(2) and liable to be quashed”. 3. Before us, Ld.AR heavily stressed

SHAIK ABDUL AZIZ,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARIMNAGAR

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment Under Section 148 is served on 18.8.2014. Orders might have been passed on or before 31.12.2015 as per Section 153(2). The orders are passed on 30.3.2016 beyond time limit specified in Section 153(2). The orders passed are barred by limitation specified in Section 153(2) and liable to be quashed”. 3. Before us, Ld.AR heavily stressed

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

147 of the Act disturbing the quantification made by the AO with respect to the deduction allowable under section 80IA of the Act. 5. In the appeal proceedings which are pending against the original assessment dated 11.11.2011 made under section 143(3) of the Act, the Appellant submitted letter dated 01.11.2016 to the ld. CIT(A) bringing notice

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 :

249,590/- and addition of Rs.5,14,80,879/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) had held at pages 58 to 65 as under : The facts of the case are that 11 companies amalgamated with the appellant vide the order of High Court dated 10.10.2013 w.e.f 01.04.2011. The amalgamating companies had identical shareholders and shareholding

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

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