SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), had filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring an income of Rs. 26,04,670/-. 3 Surender Kumar Bhojwani vs. ITO (Int. Taxn-1), Hyd 3. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

2. Initiating the reassessment proceedings beyond the time-limit prescribed under the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 13. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the “Proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, as per which the CIT(A) has been vested with the power

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section

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

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section

POTU JANARDHAN RAO,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

2. Initiating the reassessment proceedings beyond the time-limit prescribed under the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. 13. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the “Proviso” to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, as per which the CIT(A) has been vested with the power

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CRICLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

2.\nInitiating the reassessment proceedings beyond the\ntime-limit prescribed under the first proviso to section 147\nof the Act.\n13. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the\nFinance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the “Proviso\"\nto section 251(1)(a) of the Act, as per which the CIT(A) has been\nvested with the power

NATURAL POWER ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

2. The learned CIT (A) erred in not deciding the ground No.2 i.e., the jurisdiction for issue of notice u/s 148A(b), passing order u/s 148A(d) and issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act.” 14. Admittedly, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance (No.2) Act 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024 inserted the “Proviso” to section 251

NARESH KUMAR SEKHER, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abapt 0359G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kiran Dwarakanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sekhar, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5346D (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 364 & 365/Hyd/2017 Naresh Kumar Sekhar and another, Hyd. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. As the facts and grounds are identical in these appeals, they were clubbed and heard together and therefore a common order is passed for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the decision taken in ITA No. 364/Hyd/2017 shall mutatis

KIRAN DWARAKANATH SEKHAR, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyassessment Year: 2010-11 Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abapt 0359G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kiran Dwarakanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sekhar, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5346D (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 364 & 365/Hyd/2017 Naresh Kumar Sekhar and another, Hyd. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. As the facts and grounds are identical in these appeals, they were clubbed and heard together and therefore a common order is passed for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the decision taken in ITA No. 364/Hyd/2017 shall mutatis

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

2" that TOURS5 COM, HYDERABAD. was raised before the CIT(A), had specifically assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for initiating the reassessment proceedings. For the sake of clarity, the "Ground of appeal No.2” raised by the assessee company before the CIT(A) is being culled out as under: “1. The Assessing Officer who issued

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

2" that TOURS5 COM, HYDERABAD. was raised before the CIT(A), had specifically assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for initiating the reassessment proceedings. For the sake of clarity, the "Ground of appeal No.2” raised by the assessee company before the CIT(A) is being culled out as under: “1. The Assessing Officer who issued

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

251 of the Income Tax Act. Setting aside an invalid assessment for fresh adjudication undermines the fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural law, 3. The Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment without making an effort to identify or bring the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record as mandated under Section 159 of the Income

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

251 of the Income Tax Act. Setting aside an invalid assessment for fresh adjudication undermines the fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural law, 3. The Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment without making an effort to identify or bring the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record as mandated under Section 159 of the Income

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

251 of the Income Tax Act. Setting aside an invalid assessment for fresh adjudication undermines the fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural law, 3. The Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment without making an effort to identify or bring the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record as mandated under Section 159 of the Income