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\nproceedings. We concur with the observations of the CIT(A) that the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in MA 21 of 2022 (supra) as was relied upon by the assessee\ncompany speaks only of filing of petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other\nquasi proceedings relating to the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, but not\nfor 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

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

VICTORYMARVEL SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD (TDS)-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 Victorymarvel Seeds India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-(Tds)-2(3), Secunderabad - Vs. Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004 500014 Pan Aaccv9056A. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Three Appeals Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Dated 29.01.2025, 29.01.2025 & 12.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal

condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeals for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 and 17 days for the assessment year 2014-2015. 4 ITA.Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 5. The assessee company has raised common grounds in these three appeals. The grounds raised by the assessee company for the assessment year

VICTORY MARVEL SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD (TDS)-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 Victorymarvel Seeds India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-(Tds)-2(3), Secunderabad - Vs. Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004 500014 Pan Aaccv9056A. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Three Appeals Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Dated 29.01.2025, 29.01.2025 & 12.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal

condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeals for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 and 17 days for the assessment year 2014-2015. 4 ITA.Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 5. The assessee company has raised common grounds in these three appeals. The grounds raised by the assessee company for the assessment year

VICTORYMARVEL SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD (TDS)-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 Victorymarvel Seeds India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-(Tds)-2(3), Secunderabad - Vs. Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004 500014 Pan Aaccv9056A. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Three Appeals Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Dated 29.01.2025, 29.01.2025 & 12.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal

condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeals for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 and 17 days for the assessment year 2014-2015. 4 ITA.Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 5. The assessee company has raised common grounds in these three appeals. The grounds raised by the assessee company for the assessment year

SUSHEELA HOSPITAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The substantive ground raised by the assessee in these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the late fee levied by the AO u/s 234E. 4. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee company filed its statements in Form No. 26Q for Quarters

SUSHEELA HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The substantive ground raised by the assessee in these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the late fee levied by the AO u/s 234E. 4. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee company filed its statements in Form No. 26Q for Quarters

SUSHEELA HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The substantive ground raised by the assessee in these appeals is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the late fee levied by the AO u/s 234E. 4. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee company filed its statements in Form No. 26Q for Quarters

NEW AGE REAL PROPERTIES LLP ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-2(1) , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed"

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

1 610/Hyd/2020 ITA Nos. 17829, 17830, U/s 200A of the 2016-17 17831 & 17832/CIT(A)- Income-tax Act. 8/Hyd/2019-20, dated 21/08/2020. 2 611/Hyd/2020 -do- -do- :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 610 to 616/Hyd/2020 New Age Real Properties LLP, Hyd 2016-17 3 612/Hyd/2020 -do- -do- 2016-17 4 613/Hyd/2020 -do- -do- 2016-17 5 614/Hyd/2020