DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice u/s. 147

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice u/s. 147

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,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

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

SYED GULAM MOHIUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

274 rws 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act. 23. The assessee may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the Grounds of objections at any time before or at the time of hearing of the objection.” Page 3 of 16 ITA No 136 of 2023 Syed Gulam Mohiuddin

GMR AIR CARGO & AEROSPACE ENGINEERING LTD(SUCCESSOR TO GMR HYDERABAD AIR CARGO & LOGISTICS PVT LTD),SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

section 148 of the Income tax Act. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. With this, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed. of. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 12. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no notice u/s. 147

KANAKA CHALAM VOLETY,CALIFORNIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been carried out in the case of the assessee for the said assessment year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, on 24.03.2023 requesting the assessee to furnish his return of income within thirty days. However

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

147 of the I.T.Act on 09.12.2019 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,84,41,136/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither concealed the income nor submitted

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

147 of the I.T.Act on 09.12.2019 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,84,41,136/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither concealed the income nor submitted

SUBBALAKSHMAMMA PINNAMA,THUMMALAGUNTA,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

147 of the Act, by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, on 10.02.2020. In response, the assessee filed her return of income on 27.03.2021 admitting total income of Rs.1,50,68,940/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, accepting the returned income. Since the assessee had not filed the return voluntarily

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

274] (Karnataka); vi. CIT Vs. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd., [385 ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

274] (Karnataka); vi. CIT Vs. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd., [385 ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

274] (Karnataka); vi. CIT Vs. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd., [385 ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

274] (Karnataka); vi. CIT Vs. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd., [385 ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

274] (Karnataka); vi. CIT Vs. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd., [385 ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR

SUDHIR KUMAR.D.SHAH - HUF,HYDERABAD vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

274] (Karnataka); vi. CIT Vs. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd., [385 ITR 346] (Karnataka); vii. CIT Vs. Shettys Pharmaceuticals & Biologicals Ltd., [232 taxman 268] (AP); viii. Pr.CIT Vs. Rajeev Behi [398 ITR 615] (Delhi); ix. Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [231 taxman 58] (Delhi); x. Avinash Estates & Resorts Ltd., Vs. DCIT [151 ITD 399]; 6.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR