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

RR MARKETING,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

282 of the Act. r.w. rule 127 of the Rules, and\ntherefore Appellant could not put forth the case.\n2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the\naddition made by the AO of Rs.6,94,004 as income from business. The\nId. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not properly appreciated

INDUR AVENUES AND FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

282/-. AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2019 and determined total income at Rs.2,02,80,111/- by making additions towards finance charges, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and estimated interest on redeemable debentures. 16. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT

INDUR DEVELOPERS AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

282/-. AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2019 and determined total income at Rs.2,02,80,111/- by making additions towards finance charges, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and estimated interest on redeemable debentures. 16. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT

INDUR AVENUES AND FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

282/-. AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.12.2019 and determined total income at Rs.2,02,80,111/- by making additions towards finance charges, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and estimated interest on redeemable debentures. 16. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

282 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with order V rule 12 and order V rule 17 of the CPC. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no option but to quash the entire assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we quash the assessment proceedings and allow the appeal of the assessee on the legal issue

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

282 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with order V rule 12 and order V rule 17 of the CPC. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no option but to quash the entire assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we quash the assessment proceedings and allow the appeal of the assessee on the legal issue

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

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

147. The only income that escaped assessment was the interest income of ₹31,807. Since this is below ₹1,00,000, the notice u/s 148 should have been issued within 4 years (i.e., by 31.03.2020) as per Section 149(1)(a). Argument: The addition of ₹12,90,000 u/s 69A is being challenged separately. For the purpose of determining

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

u/s 148 of the old law having been issued on 01.04.2021, the entire assessment proceedings consequent to such notice are bad in law in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1). 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred rejecting the legal grounds raised by the Appellant w.r.t. initiation

LATE S.SURESH LEGAL HEIR BY S.MAHESH ,SECUNDRABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

282 of the IT Act, therefore, ought to have held the order as invalid order. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the notice dated 8.3.2016 is served in the name of a dead person, therefore, ought to have held that the same is an invalid notice, further erred in not holding the order as an invalid

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s. 143(3) after considering the credit balances in the accounts. There are no new facts before the A.O in the reassessment proceedings to change his opinion. 16. For these and any other grounds that may be raised at/before the date of hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the reassessment be held as invalid in law or alternatively delete

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s. 143(3) after considering the credit balances in the accounts. There are no new facts before the A.O in the reassessment proceedings to change his opinion. 16. For these and any other grounds that may be raised at/before the date of hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the reassessment be held as invalid in law or alternatively delete

MURARI SUBHA RAO,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 (Through Video Conference) Murari Subba Rao, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 13(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadpm 2285N (Appellant) (Respondent)

282 of the Act on the wrong address, c) no tangible material was available with the ld. AO, which would enable the ld. AO to form a belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment, d) reassessment was made based on the borrowed satisfaction and that there was no independent application of mind from the side