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

c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 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

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