RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

264 is passed; Provided further that the\nprovisions of sub-section (2) of section 274 shall apply in respect of\nthe order imposing or enhancing or reducing penalty under this sub-\nsection]\n2. The provisions of this section as they stood immediately\nbefore their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act,\n1987 (4 of 1988), shall apply

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

264 is passed; Provided further that the\nprovisions of sub-section (2) of section 274 shall apply in respect of\nthe order imposing or enhancing or reducing penalty under this sub-\nsection]\n2. The provisions of this section as they stood immediately\nbefore their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act,\n1987 (4 of 1988), shall apply

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

264 is passed; Provided further that the\nprovisions of sub-section (2) of section 274 shall apply in respect of\nthe order imposing or enhancing or reducing penalty under this sub-\nsection]\n2. The provisions of this section as they stood immediately\nbefore their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act,\n1987 (4 of 1988), shall apply

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

264\n(Madras)].\n\n5.5 In this regard, it will be relevant to examine how the Courts have dealt with\nsimilar cases. A reference may be made to decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras\nin the case of Madhu Dadha vs. ACIT reported 317 ITR 458 (Mad); (2010) 186\nTaxmann 8 (Madras). In this case, there was delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay

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

condoning the delay. In this regard, we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay

SRISAILA KSHETRA YOGI VEMA REDDY NITHYANNADANA SATRAM,KURNOOL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Srisaila Kshetra Yogi Vema Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Reddy Nityannadana Satram, Tirupati. Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Aadts7734G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gbs Maitreya Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

condoning the delay. In this regard, I note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under:"In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation

KARUNAKAR REDDY SUDHAKAR DUVVURU,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-6(1) , HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 Sri Karunakar Reddy Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Sudhakar Duvvuru, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Ahcpd0573C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Sri Rohit Majumdar For Cit Dr Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/03/2022

condoning the corresponding delay in filing the lower appeal of more than 3 years for want of reasonable explanation in support thereof. I interalia notice in this factual backdrop that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment in issue on 31.08.2016 followed by the assessee’s section 264

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

264 (P&H HC)], it was held that estimation at 8% on gross receipts is valid when books are not reliable. Likewise, in CIT v. Banwarilal Banshidhar [(1998) 229 ITR 229 (AII HC)], it was held that once estimation is made. it is a valid method of computation where books are unreliable. Therefore, the estimation made

QUARTZ INFRA AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. SHRI B. R. RAMESH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE16-(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.98/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Quartz Infra & Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-16(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacq1546N] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Pavan Kumar Chakrapani, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30 /07/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 27/08/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 27/02/2020 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Learned Cit(A)”)-4, Hyderabad In The Case Of M/S Quartz Infra & Engineering Private Ltd.(“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Assessee Preferred This Appeal, With A Delay Of 264 Days.

264 days. 2. It can be seen from the record that there is a delay in preferring this appeal and the reason for the delay in filing the appeal is attributed to the pandemic. As a matter of fact, though the learned DR does not concede to condone the delay, there is no denial of the fact that

SURESH PRODUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-13(OLD), RANGE-14(PRESENT), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

delay in filing of the C.O by the assessee is condoned and the same is admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1429/Hyd/2014 – A.Y 2003-04 (Revenue) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in film production. It filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.1

SURESH PRODUCTIONS ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

delay in filing of the C.O by the assessee is condoned and the same is admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1429/Hyd/2014 – A.Y 2003-04 (Revenue) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in film production. It filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.1