ANJANI PRS BLENDS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal. 3. Only issue which needs to be adjudicated in these appeals is the charging of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) while issuing the intimation u/s 200A of the Act. Assessee is a private limited company, engaged in the business of manufacturing

ANJANI PRS BLENDS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal. 3. Only issue which needs to be adjudicated in these appeals is the charging of late filing fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) while issuing the intimation u/s 200A of the Act. Assessee is a private limited company, engaged in the business of manufacturing

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

1 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad b) The Commissioner ought to have allowed the appeal in line with the many judgments including that of the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal Hyderabad that levy u/s 234E cannot be levied by an order u/s 200A prior to 1/6/2015. c) Any other grounds as may be pleaded

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

1 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad b) The Commissioner ought to have allowed the appeal in line with the many judgments including that of the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal Hyderabad that levy u/s 234E cannot be levied by an order u/s 200A prior to 1/6/2015. c) Any other grounds as may be pleaded

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

1 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad b) The Commissioner ought to have allowed the appeal in line with the many judgments including that of the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal Hyderabad that levy u/s 234E cannot be levied by an order u/s 200A prior to 1/6/2015. c) Any other grounds as may be pleaded

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

1 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad b) The Commissioner ought to have allowed the appeal in line with the many judgments including that of the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal Hyderabad that levy u/s 234E cannot be levied by an order u/s 200A prior to 1/6/2015. c) Any other grounds as may be pleaded

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

1 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad b) The Commissioner ought to have allowed the appeal in line with the many judgments including that of the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal Hyderabad that levy u/s 234E cannot be levied by an order u/s 200A prior to 1/6/2015. c) Any other grounds as may be pleaded

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

1 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad b) The Commissioner ought to have allowed the appeal in line with the many judgments including that of the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal Hyderabad that levy u/s 234E cannot be levied by an order u/s 200A prior to 1/6/2015. c) Any other grounds as may be pleaded

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

1 of 9 ITA 715 to 721 Suresh Samat HUF Secunderabad b) The Commissioner ought to have allowed the appeal in line with the many judgments including that of the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal Hyderabad that levy u/s 234E cannot be levied by an order u/s 200A prior to 1/6/2015. c) Any other grounds as may be pleaded

LADE MADWESH,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(2), KADAPA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lade Madwesh Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadapa Ward-2 Pan:Aabhl5201M Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.” 10. From perusal of above it is absolutely clear that any mistake which is apparent from record can only be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, Income Tax vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay) and termination of proceedings. We concur with the observations of the CIT(A) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MA 21 of 2022 (supra) as was relied upon by the assessee company speaks only of filing of petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings relating to the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, but not for any other matters. Accordingly

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

condone delay) and termination of proceedings. We concur with the observations of the CIT(A) that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA 21 of 2022 (supra) as was relied upon by the assessee company speaks only of filing of petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings relating to the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, but not for any other matters. Accordingly

MSV SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Years: 2013-14 Msv It Solutions Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Tds Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aahcm6063B Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

delay in filing of appeal is not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted at the threshold stage itself.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT appeals has erred in law and facts of the case in dismissing the case merely

VAGDEVI REDDY TANDUR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1. The Order of the Ld.CIT ( A) passed U/s 250 of the Act dated 30.05.2022 is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT ( A) erred in dismissing the appeal 3. The Ld.CIT ( A) ought to have deleted the fees levied u/s 234E of the Act for Rs.39,200/- 4. The Ld.CIT ( A) erred in not condoning

Y H REDDY CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

delay exceeding one year in filing these appeals rejecting the contention of the assessee that as per proviso to section 200A, intimation u/s 200A(1) shall not be sent before the expiry of one year from the end of the FY in which the statement is filed, rejecting the submissions of the assessees that the appeals could not be filed

Y H REDDY CONSTRUCTIONS,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

delay exceeding one year in filing these appeals rejecting the contention of the assessee that as per proviso to section 200A, intimation u/s 200A(1) shall not be sent before the expiry of one year from the end of the FY in which the statement is filed, rejecting the submissions of the assessees that the appeals could not be filed

Y H REDDY CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

delay exceeding one year in filing these appeals rejecting the contention of the assessee that as per proviso to section 200A, intimation u/s 200A(1) shall not be sent before the expiry of one year from the end of the FY in which the statement is filed, rejecting the submissions of the assessees that the appeals could not be filed

Y H REDDY CONSTRUCTIONS ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

delay exceeding one year in filing these appeals rejecting the contention of the assessee that as per proviso to section 200A, intimation u/s 200A(1) shall not be sent before the expiry of one year from the end of the FY in which the statement is filed, rejecting the submissions of the assessees that the appeals could not be filed

Y H REDDY CONSTRUCTIONS,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

delay exceeding one year in filing these appeals rejecting the contention of the assessee that as per proviso to section 200A, intimation u/s 200A(1) shall not be sent before the expiry of one year from the end of the FY in which the statement is filed, rejecting the submissions of the assessees that the appeals could not be filed