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

reassessment proceedings it is not open to an assessee to seek a review of the concluded item, unconnected with the escapement of income, for the purpose of computation of the escaped income. 44. The appeals, consequently, succeed and are allowed. The orders of the High Court are set aside and those of the Tribunal restored. Since the assessee

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

RAMA MOHAN SOMA,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, HINDUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

254 for the A.Y. 2012- 13 which is typographical error. (i) Whether notice u/s 143(2) was issued in this case, if so, what is the date of issue and DIN ? It is found from the record that though a notice u/s 143(2) dated 24.06.2019 is available on record, there is no proof of service Of this notice. Also

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)

u/s 143(3), the question of change of opinion does not arise. Further, what is required at the time of issueance of notice under section 147 is reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, but not the established act of escapement of income. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion

S HARINATH CHOWDARY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

section 50C of the Act and it was also held that the finally determined capital gains cannot exceed the capital gains originally assessed in the assessment order. 2.1. In the meantime,, the AO reopened the assessment for the A.Y.2007-08 u/s 147 of the Act by observing that the development agreement was dated 24.7.2003 and some of the terms or Clauses

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

147 or 263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

147 or 263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

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

u/s 92CA and the same is extended upto 31.12.2016, whereas the A.O. passed the final assessment order only on 30.10.2017, which is beyond the limitation provided under the Act, ITA 1862/Hyd/2017 Brightcom Group Limited and therefore, cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. should be quashed

INTERWRAP CORP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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)

u/s 144C(5) of the Act, is bad in law and void ab initio so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. TPO/Ld, AO erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 47,92,29,000 on account of adjustment towards

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 issuing notice u/s 148 on 25/06/2010. In the reassessment, AO assessed the income at Rs. 22,68,35,848/- by making disallowance towards depreciation on pollution control equipment of Rs. 14,54,327/- and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/-. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising

M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 issuing notice u/s 148 on 25/06/2010. In the reassessment, AO assessed the income at Rs. 22,68,35,848/- by making disallowance towards depreciation on pollution control equipment of Rs. 14,54,327/- and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/-. 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising

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)

u/s 92CA, and the same would extend the time limit up to 31.12.2023, whereas the A.O. passed the final assessment order only on 06.12.2024, which is beyond the limitation provided under the Act, and therefore, cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. should be quashed

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

u/s 92CA and the same is extended up to 31.12.2023, whereas the A.O. passed the final assessment order only on 06.06.2024, which is beyond the limitation provided under the Act, and therefore, cannot be sustained. Therefore, she submitted that, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. should be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue

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

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

u/s 92CA, and the same would extend the time limit up to 31.12.2023, whereas the A.O. passed the final assessment order only on 23.10.2024, which is beyond the limitation provided under the Act, and therefore, cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. should be quashed

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