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

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

91,165/- vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed\nu/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2.4.1.\nIt was the submission of the Learned Counsel for\nthe Assessee that since the assessee has made a claim of\ndeduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act for the first time in the\nreturn of income filed in response to notice issued\nu/sec.153A

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

91,165/- vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed\nu/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\n2.4.1.\nIt was the submission of the Learned Counsel for\nthe Assessee that since the assessee has made a claim of\ndeduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act for the first time in the\nreturn of income filed in response to notice issued\nu/sec.153A

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

91,165/- vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed\nu/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2.4.1.\nIt was the submission of the Learned Counsel for\nthe Assessee that since the assessee has made a claim of\ndeduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act for the first time in the\nreturn of income filed in response to notice issued\nu/sec.153A

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

147 of the Act dated 28-12- 2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 25. The other issues that came up for our consideration from ground nos. 4 to 8 of assessee’s appeal are relating to the addition of Rs.41,64,131/- towards finance cost being interest paid

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

147 of the Act dated 28-12- 2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 25. The other issues that came up for our consideration from ground nos. 4 to 8 of assessee’s appeal are relating to the addition of Rs.41,64,131/- towards finance cost being interest paid

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

147 of the Act dated 28-12- 2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO. 25. The other issues that came up for our consideration from ground nos. 4 to 8 of assessee’s appeal are relating to the addition of Rs.41,64,131/- towards finance cost being interest paid

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

91,24,940\n42,28,32,928\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee company and this office is in possession of books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax represented in the form

EYEGEAR OPTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

section 147 of the Act. 8. Reassessing the income based on a mere change of opinion on the existing facts. Eyegear Optics India Private Limited ITA No.1347/Hyd/2024 & 1291/Hyd/2024 9. Holding that the alleged referral fees paid to Doctors is in violation of public policy and regulations formulated by the Medical Council of India (“MCI”). 10. Not understanding that the alleged

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:-

reassessment order u/s. 147 of the I.T.Act to bring certain items liable to tax which do not form part of the reasons for reopening of the assessment. He reiterated that the verification of Rs.4,85,00,000/- was never a part of the reasons recorded by the AO at the time of issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T.Act

PALLAPU SRINIVASARAO (HUF),ALMASGUDA vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

reassessment proceedings as void-ab-Initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer is not justified in making addition of Rs.84,91,663 u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained deposits in the bank account. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

91,24,940\n42,28,32,928\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment in the case of the assessee company and this office is in\npossession of books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Country Club Hospitality & Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacc 8276 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2022

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that :- 12 -: ITA No.. 548/Hyd/2021 Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyd. the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

91,24,940\n42,28,32,928\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment in the case of the assessee company and this office is in\npossession of books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the\nincome chargeable to tax represented

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

91,24,940\n42,28,32,928\n\n3. In view of the above, there is information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment in the case of the assessee company and this office is in\npossession of books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the\nincome chargeable to tax represented

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,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,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