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

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

delay in filing Form 10B was condoned considering the pandemic and other reasons. Regarding the penalty under section 271D, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not recorded the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, which is a mandatory condition. Furthermore, the penalty proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed time limits. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

condonation of delay\nbefore the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled\nproposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12\nof the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot\nbe assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred\nby the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condonation of delay\nbefore the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled\nproposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12\nof the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot\nbe assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred\nby the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

delay in filing Form 10B, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted condonation and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the exemption claim. Regarding the penalty under Section 271D, the Tribunal found it unsustainable due to the absence of a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and the initiation of penalty proceedings after the period of limitation.", "result": "Allowed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & 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

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

153A of the Act", "Section 253 of the Act", "Section 249 of the Income Tax Act", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act", "Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

153A of the Act but these grounds were raised by the assessee which were already subject matter of the appeal filed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, in view of the issue of eligibility of section 80IA on the enhanced eligible business income of the assessee, these additional grounds became infructuous