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

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

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26.12.2019, u/s 271AAC of the Act, dated 06.01.2022 and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, dated 03.09.2021. As the captioned appeals are inextricably interwoven or interlinked, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take

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

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26.12.2019, u/s 271AAC of the Act, dated 06.01.2022 and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, dated 03.09.2021. As the captioned appeals are inextricably interwoven or interlinked, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take

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

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26.12.2019, u/s 271AAC of the Act, dated 06.01.2022 and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, dated 03.09.2021. As the captioned appeals are inextricably interwoven or interlinked, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take

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

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

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Applying the said decision in the present case, the time limit for passing penalty order u/s 272A(I)(d) of the Act was 06.06.2020 as per the provisions of section 275 of the Act, however, since the period of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 comes within the relaxation 4 period provided by Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

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

272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before

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

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

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