UNITED BRESWARIES LTD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JCIT, TDS, RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

271(1)(c). However, factual and legal matrix in the present case are totally different. Factually, as already discussed above, the plain terms of the Brewing Agreement clearly show that the impugned payments were made towards royalty and not towards any contract work. The assessee company is a party to the agreement and has also submitted that the payments were

UNITED BRESWARIES LTD,,SRIKAKULAM vs. JCIT, TDS, RANGE,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.454-456/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S United Breweries Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of (Successor To M/S United Millenium Income Tax Breweries Ltd.,) Tds Range Bantupalli Village Visakhapatnam Ranasthalam Mandalam Srikakulam Dt. [Pan :Aaacu6053C] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr ""यथ"क"ओरसे / Respondent By सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 :

271(1)(c). However, factual and legal matrix in the present case are totally different. Factually, as already discussed above, the plain terms of the Brewing Agreement clearly show that the impugned payments were made towards royalty and not towards any contract work. The assessee company is a party to the agreement and has also submitted that the payments were

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated\n22.03.2024 and 20.09.2024 respectively, pertaining to the assessment\nyear 2016-17.\n2.\nThe appellant filed an appeal before ITAT, stating that the\nreopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was based merely on\nsystem generated information, which is invalid and without any\ntangible material. In the grounds

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 22.03.2024 and 20.09.2024 respectively, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The appellant filed an appeal before ITAT, stating that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was based merely on system generated information, which is invalid and without any tangible material. In the grounds