TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delayed beyond prescribed time. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya Vs. Addl. CIT, reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.com 240 ( Pune Tribunal), wherein the issue of levying penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has been elaborately dealt with and the issue of reasonable cause that has been also discussed in detail. This

STAR ORGANIC FOODS INC,NELLORE vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the delay in filing of the 5 ITA.No.715/Hyd./2025 appeal should not be condoned. The learned DR further submitted that, the assessee is a non-complaint to all proceedings, which is evident from the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) where the assessee had not filed

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

condone the inordinate delay involved in the appeal filed before him and dismissed the same in limine on the ground of limitation. 16. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA Nos.1139 and 1140/Hyd/2024 17. On a perusal of the record, we find that in both the aforementioned matters, there was a delay in filing the respective appeals

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

condone the inordinate delay involved in the appeal filed before him and dismissed the same in limine on the ground of limitation. 16. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA Nos.1139 and 1140/Hyd/2024 17. On a perusal of the record, we find that in both the aforementioned matters, there was a delay in filing the respective appeals

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

condone the inordinate delay involved in the appeal filed before him and dismissed the same in limine on the ground of limitation. 16. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA Nos.1139 and 1140/Hyd/2024 17. On a perusal of the record, we find that in both the aforementioned matters, there was a delay in filing the respective appeals

LANCO RITHWIK JOINT VENTURE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Lanco Rithwik Joint Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 14(1), Venture, Hyderabad. Plot No.37 & 39, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034. Pan : Aabal3655J (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2024 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3 ITA 232/Hyd/2023 6. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Appellate order

MAHESHWAR REDDY KURA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices, and 3 Maheshwar Reddy Kura issued the final demand after charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal on 22.10.2021 challenging the assessment order

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

THE SULLURPET FARMERS SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1346/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2017-2018) The Sullurpet Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Sullurpeta – 524 121. Vs. Ward-1, Gudur. Nellore District. Pin – 524 101. Pan Aacat7587J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Harsha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Ar

condone the said delay, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. “The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KHAMMAM vs. BHARAT AUTO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, KHAMMAM

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

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

section 144 r.w.s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 40 days. It has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing Form 10B as per Instruction No.F.No.267/482/77-IT(part) dated 09.02.1978. 7. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4 ITA Nos.1210 and 1211/Hyd/2025 & C.O. Nos.27 and 28/Hyd/2025 National Institute of Rural Development & Pranchayati Raj 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, National Institute of Rural Development

SKYBRIDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, (TP)-2 HYDERBAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices were initiated separately. 3. The Registry has objected that the present appeal is not maintainable as per section 253(1)(d) of the Act. In the present case, AO has passed draft assessment order on 22/11/2023. Against that draft assessment order, assessee has not filed any objections before the AO as well

RAAJASEKAR JEEVITHA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajasekar Jeevitha, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O.P. Murali & Co., Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Central Circle – 2(3), 6-3-655/2/3, Hyderabad. Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082 Pan : Aagpj7813A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri A.P. Babu, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.10.2023

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Applying the said decision in the present case, the time limit for passing penalty order u/s 272A

AKBAR VIRANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Akbar Virani, Vs. The Income Tax Oficer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aegpv9662P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vemulapati Sridhar, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024

condonation petition filed by the appellant and ought to have given due consideration to the reasons furnished for the delay in the interest of natural justice to the appellant. 3. The appellant submits that the learned first appellate authority ought to have held that order under section 147 passed in the case of the appellant

LAXMI DHARAMSOTH,MANCHYA THANDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

Bench: Us:

272A(1)(d) by the AO, the appellant has preferred appeals against the Tax Demand, Penalties. 5. The appellant has pleaded before the CIT Appeals to condone the delay and kindly look into the merits of the case of income escapement. But the Honorable CIT Appeals has denied the request of condonation and passed the orders. 3 Laxmi Dharamsoth