THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

MADURAI TUTICORIN EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

SANZYME PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

RAGHU ALEKH BARLI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

BIKARAM PUSHPENDER,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

LINGAMGUNTA ADILAXMI,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

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

2) and (3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

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

2) and (3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

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

2) and (3) of section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period

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

sections": [ "Sec. 143(1)", "Sec. 271D", "Sec. 154", "Sec. 250", "Sec. 10B", "Sec. 11", "Sec. 12", "Sec. 119(2)(b)", "Sec. 12AA", "Sec. 139(1)", "Sec. 119(2)(b)", "Sec. 132", "Sec. 153A", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 269SS", "Sec. 271D", "Sec. 275(1)(c)", "Sec. 271E", "Sec. 119(2)(b)", "Sec. 273B

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

In the result, three appeals i

2)(b) of the Act, dated\n18/01/2024, the rectification order passed by the ACIT/CPC u/s 154\ndated 27/09/2022 becomes infructuous. In our considered view, the\nobservation of the learned CIT (A) in para 6.2.8 of his order is beyond the\nscope of powers of the CIT (A) because, the CIT (A) does not have any\npower to give any direction

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

2)(b) of the Act, dated\n18/01/2024, the rectification order passed by the ACIT/CPC u/s 154\ndated 27/09/2022 becomes infructuous. In our considered view, the\nobservation of the learned CIT (A) in para 6.2.8 of his order is beyond the\nscope of powers of the learned CIT (A) because, the CIT (A) does not have any\npower to give

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

ACIT 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

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

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