MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay and allow the C.O. for\nadjudication.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual,\nfiled its Return of Income (“ROI\") for A.Y. 2013-14 on 5.3.2015\nadmitting total income of Rs.3,21,052/-. The Learned Assessing\nOfficer (\"Ld. AO\") was on receipt of information that the assessee\nhad sold land during

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of above two case laws considered hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay, does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge delay

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of above two case laws considered hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay, does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge delay

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

delay, does not come under\n\"sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge\ndelay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal\nfiled by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the\nappeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un-\nadmitted.\n\n11.\nIn the result

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand of Rs. 16,84,166/-. The directors of the company

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand of Rs. 16,84,166/-. The directors of the company

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand of Rs. 16,84,166/-. The directors of the company

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand of Rs. 16,84,166/-. The directors of the company

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand of Rs. 16,84,166/-. The directors of the company

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand of Rs. 16,84,166/-. The directors of the company

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand of Rs. 16,84,166/-. The directors of the company

JAGADESSHWAR RAO CHIDARA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 29/12/2017 determined his total income at Rs. 9,46,180/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities on 07 occasions by the CIT(A), had neither participated in the appellate proceedings nor furnished

RAJENDRA PRASAD ANNE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 9(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

46 days in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 4. Brief Facts of the Case are that, the assessee is an individual and did not file any return of income under section 139 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

46,987/- at the rate of 10% on offshore contract receipts of\nRs.15,44,69,874/-. Further, he estimated profit at the rate of 20% on offshore\ncontract service receipts of Rs.47,11,231/-, amounting to Rs.9,42,246/-. While\ncomputing the total income, the Ld. AO adopted the income assessed in the\nearlier order under section 143(3) r.w.s.263

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

46,987/- at the rate of 10% on offshore contract receipts of\nRs.15,44,69,874/-. Further, he estimated profit at the rate of 20% on offshore\ncontract service receipts of Rs.47,11,231/-, amounting to Rs.9,42,246/-. While\ncomputing the total income, the Ld. AO adopted the income assessed in the\nearlier order under section 143(3) r.w.s

KRANTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHADRACHALLAM vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

condone such delay and as such, the order of the lower authorities does not call for any interference. 10. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O./CPC processed the return of income filed by the assessee on 28.03.2023 and issued intimation under Section

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon