DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

147, 148, 149 and 153 would give way to the provisions of section 153A of the Act. It was submitted that once the assessee has not claimed the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in the original return of income, then the same cannot be claimed while filing the return of income in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153A

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

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

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

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

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

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 153A of the Act then it is concluded that the assessee has complied with the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the Act and fresh claim can be made towards deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. He further referring to the provisions of Section 80AC submitted that as per the said provision, no deduction under Section 80IA

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

80-IA (4) "(4) This section applies to- (i) any enterprise carrying on the business [of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining] any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions) namely:- (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies [or by an authority

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

80-IA (4) "(4) This section applies to- (i) any enterprise carrying on the business [of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining] any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions) namely:- (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies [or by an authority

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

147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income

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

147 regarding assessment or reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue coming before Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped income

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts \"shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b).\" Further, this

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

80,300/-; and (ii) addition from business or profession: Rs.17,41,125/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was, inter alia, the claim of the assessee before the CIT(A) that as the AO had reopened his case vide notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 07/04/2022 i.e., beyond

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

80-IA which was\nmade first time in the return filed u/s 153A without\nappreciating the fact that the provisions of section 153A\ncould not operate to advantage of the assessee, who\nchose not to make a claim in the manner lawfully open\nto it u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\niii.\nWhether on the facts

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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

80-IA which was\nmade first time in the return filed u/s 153A without\nappreciating the fact that the provisions of section 153A\ncould not operate to advantage of the assessee, who\nchose not to make a claim in the manner lawfully open\nto it u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\niii.\nWhether on the facts

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

80-IA which was\nmade first time in the return filed u/s 153A without\nappreciating the fact that the provisions of section 153A\ncould not operate to advantage of the assessee, who\nchose not to make a claim in the manner lawfully open\nto it u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\n\niii.\nWhether on the facts

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

80-IA which was\nmade first time in the return filed u/s 153A without\nappreciating the fact that the provisions of section 153A\ncould not operate to advantage of the assessee, who\nchose not to make a claim in the manner lawfully open\nto it u/s 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act.\n24\nITA. Nos.1721, 1722 & 1723/Hyd./2017

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 IT Act, without appreciating that the very notice issued under section 148 is bad in law and void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the reopening without (a) any incriminating material relating to AY 2020-21 found in the search on 04.01.2023, and (b) appreciating the fact that the notice u/s

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 IT Act, without appreciating that the very notice issued under section 148 is bad in law and void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the reopening without (a) any incriminating material relating to AY 2020-21 found in the search on 04.01.2023, and (b) appreciating the fact that the notice u/s