KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

CHURCH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

7 SCC 123 wherein it\nwas held as under:-\n"6.\n\"In N. Balakrishna (supra), it was reiterated that the\nword 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction\nand acceptability of the explanation is the criteria, and not\nthe length of delay as such by observing as under:\n\"In every case of delay there can be some lapse

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay does not fall within the category of satisfactory reasons. Further, there was a delay of 2892 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He drew the attention of the Bench to the reasons given in the letter which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay does not fall within the category of satisfactory reasons. Further, there was a delay of 2892 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He drew the attention of the Bench to the reasons given in the letter which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay does not fall within the category of satisfactory reasons. Further, there was a delay of 2892 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He drew the attention of the Bench to the reasons given in the letter which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay does not fall within the category of satisfactory reasons. Further, there was a delay of 2892 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He drew the attention of the Bench to the reasons given in the letter which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay does not fall within the category of satisfactory reasons. Further, there was a delay of 2892 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He drew the attention of the Bench to the reasons given in the letter which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay does not fall within the category of satisfactory reasons. Further, there was a delay of 2892 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He drew the attention of the Bench to the reasons given in the letter which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay does not fall within the category of satisfactory reasons. Further, there was a delay of 2892 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). He drew the attention of the Bench to the reasons given in the letter which is to the following effect: Page 5 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 154 dt.14.02.2020 for rectification of the order passed by the authorities was received in the office. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, from the record produced by the revenue, it is absolutely clear that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) was duly received in the office of the assessee. Therefore

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed