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

200A of the I.T. Act passed by the Assessing Officer/Asstt. Commissioner CPC-TDS. Thereafter, in terms of notification No.139/2021/F.No.370142/66/2021-TPL, dated 28.12.2021, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeals Centre and is dismissed by the NFAC Delhi on account of delay in filing rectification application and also condonation application for condonation of the huge delay. Feeling aggrieved

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

200A of the I.T. Act passed by the Assessing Officer/Asstt. Commissioner CPC-TDS. Thereafter, in terms of notification No.139/2021/F.No.370142/66/2021-TPL, dated 28.12.2021, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeals Centre and is dismissed by the NFAC Delhi on account of delay in filing rectification application and also condonation application for condonation of the huge delay. Feeling aggrieved

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

200A of the I.T. Act passed by the Assessing Officer/Asstt. Commissioner CPC-TDS. Thereafter, in terms of notification No.139/2021/F.No.370142/66/2021-TPL, dated 28.12.2021, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeals Centre and is dismissed by the NFAC Delhi on account of delay in filing rectification application and also condonation application for condonation of the huge delay. Feeling aggrieved

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

200A of the I.T. Act passed by the Assessing Officer/Asstt. Commissioner CPC-TDS. Thereafter, in terms of notification No.139/2021/F.No.370142/66/2021-TPL, dated 28.12.2021, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeals Centre and is dismissed by the NFAC Delhi on account of delay in filing rectification application and also condonation application for condonation of the huge delay. Feeling aggrieved

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

200A of the I.T. Act passed by the Assessing Officer/Asstt. Commissioner CPC-TDS. Thereafter, in terms of notification No.139/2021/F.No.370142/66/2021-TPL, dated 28.12.2021, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeals Centre and is dismissed by the NFAC Delhi on account of delay in filing rectification application and also condonation application for condonation of the huge delay. Feeling aggrieved

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

V-SECURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(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 Year: 2013-14 V- Secure Financial Services Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 17(4), Hyderabad.

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

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

3) of the Act, therefore, as per the clear mandate of section 234E of the Act, it was liable to pay by way of fee, a sum of Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continued. The CIT(A) based on his aforesaid observations, found no infirmity in the levy of fee under section 234E

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

3) of the Act, therefore, as per the clear mandate of section 234E of the Act, it was liable to pay by way of fee, a sum of Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continued. The CIT(A) based on his aforesaid observations, found no infirmity in the levy of fee under section 234E

VISKAAN PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS(TDS),WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी /

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is that the fee under section 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for furnishing the statement under section 200 Clause-3 of the Act with delay, was levied for the periods prior to 1st June

VISKAAN PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी /

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is that the fee under section 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for furnishing the statement under section 200 Clause-3 of the Act with delay, was levied for the periods prior to 1st June

VISKAAN PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS(TDS),WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी /

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is that the fee under section 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for furnishing the statement under section 200 Clause-3 of the Act with delay, was levied for the periods prior to 1st June

VISKAAN PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी /

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is that the fee under section 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for furnishing the statement under section 200 Clause-3 of the Act with delay, was levied for the periods prior to 1st June

VISKAAN PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी /

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is that the fee under section 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for furnishing the statement under section 200 Clause-3 of the Act with delay, was levied for the periods prior to 1st June

VISKAAN PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी /

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is that the fee under section 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for furnishing the statement under section 200 Clause-3 of the Act with delay, was levied for the periods prior to 1st June

VISKAAN PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी /

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is that the fee under section 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for furnishing the statement under section 200 Clause-3 of the Act with delay, was levied for the periods prior to 1st June

VISKAAN PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (TDS), WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी /

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Grievance of the assessee in all these appeals is that the fee under section 234E of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for furnishing the statement under section 200 Clause-3 of the Act with delay, was levied for the periods prior to 1st June