KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

139(1), and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. 24. The purpose of inserting Explanation-5 in the statute books was explained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

139(1), and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. 24. The purpose of inserting Explanation-5 in the statute books was explained by the Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99/118 Taxman 324, wherein

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

139 (Delhi). M/s BS Ltd., Hyd. 15.4 Ld. AR submitted that the AO erred in disallowing the interest expenditure without appreciating the fact that the purchases and sales with the above referred parties were made in the earlier assessment years also wherein they are accepted and assessment were completed without any additions. It is pertinent to note that the purchases

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2018, declaring an income of Rs.141,83,11,120/-, and “book profit” under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 230,21,15,364/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, on various issues, viz. business purchases, deduction claimed under section 801A

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2018,\ndeclaring an income of Rs.141,83,11,120/-, and “book profit” under\nSection 115JB of the Act of Rs. 230,21,15,364/-. Subsequently, the\ncase of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny\nunder the E-assessment Scheme, 2019, on various issues, viz.\nbusiness purchases, deduction claimed under section 801A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

DY. COMMSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, holding the claim to be belated, technically invalid, as well