PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

250 of the Act for the AY 2013- 14 is erroneous and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who passed the order u/s 147 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

250 of the Act for the AY 2013- 14 is erroneous and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who passed the order u/s 147 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

250(6) of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal before or in course of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information shared by the Director General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, Hyderabad that the assessee company had irregularly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

250 of the Act dt. 20/06/2025 for the AY 2018-19 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2.The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the submissions made by the assessee, which is against to the principles of natural justice and against

THULASI CHAMARTHY,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, CHITTOOR

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

250 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in not correct either on facts or in law and in both. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred, in mechanically treating the entire property sold in May 2017 as one short-term capital asset being the residential flat constructed in March 2016, ignoring the clear distinction between the undivided share

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)

250 dated 15-07-2025 erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudice to the interests of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in not issuing the notice under section 143(2) of the LT Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering

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

Bench: Us:

250 of the Act dt. 30/06/2025 for the AY 2014-15 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the settled position

SRESTA NATURAL BIOPRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

u/s 270A despite there is no concealment of income by the appellant for the AY 2020-21. 8. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Learned Authorised Representative

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

u/s 80-IC/801AB/10AA of the Act. 11.4. Further the Ld. A.O/Hon'ble DRP, ignored the order of Hon'ble ITAT in Appellant own case for the previous assessment years wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has ruled in favour of Appellant. The Appellant requests, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and reserves

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

u/s 80-IC/801AB/10AA of the Act. 11.4. Further the Ld. A.O/Hon'ble DRP, ignored the order of Hon'ble ITAT in Appellant own case for the previous assessment years wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has ruled in favour of Appellant. The Appellant requests, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and reserves

JVR RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Jvr Retails Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1) C/O. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 Pan : Aaccv9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V.Joshi Appeared For P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021 Passed U/S. 263 By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad Relating To A Y 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In The Business Of Retails & Manufacturing Of Jewelry. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,97,390/- On 08.09.2012 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 21.02.2013. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment By Recording Reasons As Per Provisions Of Section 147. The Reasons To Believe Which Was Put Up Before The Ld.Pcit-2 For Approval & Which Has Been Reproduced By The Ao In The Body Of The Assessment Order Read As Under:-

reassessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and has not meddled with the above issue as he was fully satisfied with the details furnished as available with him. So, the Ld.Pr.CIT cannot direct the Ld.AO us/. 263 of the Act to re-examine the same issue or conduct further enquiries on the issue already considered by the AO. 4

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 148 were initiated, assessee can validly revise the returns and relied on various case law. Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected these contentions by stating as under: “9.9. The AR has sought to argue that a return filed in response to a notice u/s 148 is to be treated as a return required to be furnished u/s 139 and consequently

BILWA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

250 of the Act dt. 20/06/2025 for the AY 2019-20 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered