TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. As the facts and issues in both the appeals are identical, we are taking ITA No.424/Hyd/2022 as lead appeal for the sake of brevity. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee is a company who filed appeal on 04.10.2021 u/s 246A

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.

delay that such an order was not appealable at that point of time as submitted by the assessee V-Secure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. are not sustainable as the orders passed u/s 200A were appealable orders as per the provisions of section 246A. However, the assessee has now brought to our notice the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

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:

condone the delay and not admitted the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “4. I have considered the submission made by the AR. From the submissions of the AR. I am constrained to note that the AR completely misconstrued and misunderstood the Issue with regard to maintainability of appeals on order u/s.200A(1). The order u/s.200A(1

MUMTAZ ALI MOHD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for standalone reason that the assessee despite 9 Mumtaz Ali Mohd vs. ITO having been afforded 5 opportunities, i.e., vide notices dated 04/10/2023, 20/10/2023, 08/11/2023, 24/11/2023 and 18/12/2023 had failed

OPTISERV MUSKAN SERVICES PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condonation of delay along with affidavit. 3. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A), Hyderabad’s order dated 14/07/2015 for AY 2005- 06 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee when the assessee preferred an appeal

OPTISERV MUSKAN SERVICES PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condonation of delay along with affidavit. 3. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A), Hyderabad’s order dated 14/07/2015 for AY 2005- 06 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee when the assessee preferred an appeal

VENKATARATNAM TIRIMINCHI,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, NELLORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

condone the delay of 192 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. 5. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on specific information that though the assessee had during the subject year made cash deposits in his bank account and was also in receipt of interest income, but had not filed his return of income

MAHESH YADAV ALAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.A., the learned Authorized Representative (for short ‘Ld. AR’) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that the captioned appeal involves a delay of 8 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had occasioned