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

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

147 of the Act, Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy vs. DCIT (b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B

PRABHAKAR REDDY BASIREDDY, NALGONDA vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

147 of the Act, Prabhakar Reddy Basireddy vs. DCIT (b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B

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)

147 of the Act, (b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B of the Act with reference

ANKIT JAIN, HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Us:

147 of the Act, (b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, Ankit Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT to the extent provided in section 144B

ANKIT JAIN,HYDERABAD. vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Us:

147 of the Act, (b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, Ankit Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT to the extent provided in section 144B

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\n\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond provisions of sections 139, 147 and 263, as\nsuch

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\n24\nITA. Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017\nAnd ITA.No.1416/Hyd./2019\niii.\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nand in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the\nProvisions of sections 153A to 153C cannot be\ninterpreted to be further innings for AO and/or assessee\nbeyond

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

Bench: Us:

1. The order of Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) is erroneous both in fact in law. Furthermore, the invocation of Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) against the said order is also bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. The order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under

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

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

263 of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that as the bonds were issued only for the purpose of securing loan finance, the assessee has not obtained any asset or advantage of any enduring nature and the expenditure made is for securing the use of money in business for certain period. He has submitted that it is irrelevant to consider

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:-

1,65,00,000/- 8. the Ld.Pr.CIT erred in issuing 263 order on the issues other than those which are subject matter of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and accordingly the proceedings ought to be annulled. 9. The Ld.Pr.CIT erred in issuing 263 order on an assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act which was reopened

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

1)(a)( i) refers to "the tax, if any, payable" (by the assessee) mentioned in the earlier part of the section. It is true that the Lahore and Delhi High Courts have taken a different view. But the view taken by the Calcutta and Mysore High Courts cannot be said to be untenable view. Hence, particularly in view

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. B.RAMALINGA RAJU, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

1)(a)( i) refers to "the tax, if any, payable" (by the assessee) mentioned in the earlier part of the section. It is true that the Lahore and Delhi High Courts have taken a different view. But the view taken by the Calcutta and Mysore High Courts cannot be said to be untenable view. Hence, particularly in view

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

263. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “The non obstante clause at the beginning of Section 153A (1) of the Act suspends, for the purpose and to the extent as indicated in such provision, the operation of several other provisions of the Act, including Section 139 and even Section 147 in course

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

263. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “The non obstante clause at the beginning of Section 153A (1) of the Act suspends, for the purpose and to the extent as indicated in such provision, the operation of several other provisions of the Act, including Section 139 and even Section 147 in course

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

263. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “The non obstante clause at the beginning of Section 153A (1) of the Act suspends, for the purpose and to the extent as indicated in such provision, the operation of several other provisions of the Act, including Section 139 and even Section 147 in course

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 263 dated 13.03.2006, the Ld. AO passed order\nunder section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act on 29.03.2006, wherein\nhe estimated 5% profit on the offshore contract receipts of Rs.9,68,78,721/-\nresulting in an addition of Rs.48,43,936/-.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nchallenging