RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

UNITED INFRA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

u/s 148 of the Act failed to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 148A of the Act, therefore, both the reopening and the framing of the assessment by him, vide his order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 31.03.2022, was rendered as invalid and bad in law; and (ii). that as the reassessment proceedings

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings, we are 7 ITA 218 and 219/Hyd/2025 Navadurga Transport Company vs. ITO unable to persuade ourselves to accept the same. As observed by the CIT(A) and rightly so, as the AO at the stage of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act is only required to have some material available with him, based on which

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings, we are 7 ITA 218 and 219/Hyd/2025 Navadurga Transport Company vs. ITO unable to persuade ourselves to accept the same. As observed by the CIT(A) and rightly so, as the AO at the stage of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act is only required to have some material available with him, based on which

VISHAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vishal Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aympj0559M. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

GAVIREDDYGARI HARIKISHORE REDDY,ANANTHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY GOTEKE,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

SARITHA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

RAMA SUBBA REDDY KUDUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered

SARITHA AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

69C were not sustainable. [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 CIT, Central —III, Mumbai Vs Lavanya Land (P)Ltd (Paper Book page. No. 58 to 70) Ground No.5: The A.O. used the admission of the director made u/s 132(4) of the Act in their case against the assessee, but failed to note that admission of other parties cannot be considered