SUNSHINE GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 61/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Sunshine Granites Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Karimnagar Central Circle-1(2), [Pan No. Aaocs6148Q] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध / Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध / Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 13/02/2024

condone the delay, there is no denial of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of M.A.No. 21/2022 in M.A.No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10/01/2022 held that in cases, where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

carry forward losses of the earlier years from A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, the same was also denied by the CPC. Thereafter, the assessee had filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) after a delay of 3047 days on 29.07.2019. As the appeal of the assessee was time barred for a period of 3047 days

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

carry forward losses of the earlier years from A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, the same was also denied by the CPC. Thereafter, the assessee had filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) after a delay of 3047 days on 29.07.2019. As the appeal of the assessee was time barred for a period of 3047 days

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

carry forward losses of the earlier years from A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, the same was also denied by the CPC. Thereafter, the assessee had filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) after a delay of 3047 days on 29.07.2019. As the appeal of the assessee was time barred for a period of 3047 days

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

carry forward losses of the earlier years from A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, the same was also denied by the CPC. Thereafter, the assessee had filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) after a delay of 3047 days on 29.07.2019. As the appeal of the assessee was time barred for a period of 3047 days

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

carry forward losses of the earlier years from A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2015-16, the same was also denied by the CPC. Thereafter, the assessee had filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) after a delay of 3047 days on 29.07.2019. As the appeal of the assessee was time barred for a period of 3047 days

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

loss of time, assailed the impugned order before the CIT(A) on 19.12.2022, which, by the time, involved a delay of 1059 days. The assessee in his explanation regarding the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), had specifically stressed on the fact that the correspondence of the Department through email was not accessible to him, which

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

loss of time, assailed the impugned order before the CIT(A) on 19.12.2022, which, by the time, involved a delay of 1059 days. The assessee in his explanation regarding the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), had specifically stressed on the fact that the correspondence of the Department through email was not accessible to him, which

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

loss of time, assailed the impugned order before the CIT(A) on 19.12.2022, which, by the time, involved a delay of 1059 days. The assessee in his explanation regarding the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), had specifically stressed on the fact that the correspondence of the Department through email was not accessible to him, which

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company filed its return of income for F.Y. 2018-19 on 27.10.2018, declaring a loss of Rs. 277,7468,523/- and the said return has been revised by filing a revised return on 21.01.2019, admitting

ARYA VYSYA TRUST,VIKARABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

Bench: Us:

loss of time. For the sake of clarity, the submissions of the assessee- trust regarding the reasons leading to the delay with a request for condonation of the same as was filed before the CIT(A) are culled out as under: “The appellant is a small organization and al the trustees are volunteers working without any remuneration, the appellant does

SECUNDERABAD CLUB,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Secunderabad Club, Hyderabad. Pan Aaaat2534E …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.16.02.2018 Passed In Case No.0051/2016-17/B2/Cit(A)-6 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

delays are neither intentional nor deliberate on account of 2019 pandemic only. The same stands condoned therefore. 3. The assessee's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the very authorities’ 3 action disallowing its alleged operational loss of Rs.4,07,27,370 arising from mutuality account as a deficit has not eligible

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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

SRI SAI VISHWAS INDUSTRIES, ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

delay is condoned. 2. As regards merits of the case is concerned, I find that the assessee firm originally filed its return of income for A.Y 2011-12 on 11.10.2011 declaring total income of Rs.3,75,001/-. The return was initially processed u/s 143(1) and later on reopened by issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Income

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 2,996\ndays in filing the appeal and direct that the appeal be admitted for\nadjudication on merits.\n10. In addition to the aforesaid facts, the specific facts related to this appeal\nare that, pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated\n25.07.2014 restoring the appeal arising from the assessment order dated\n29.03.2004

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 2,996\ndays in filing the appeal and direct that the appeal be admitted for\nadjudication on merits.\n10. In addition to the aforesaid facts, the specific facts related to this appeal\nare that, pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated\n25.07.2014 restoring the appeal arising from the assessment order dated\n29.03.2004