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

273B", "Sec. 143(1)", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 147", "Sec. 271E", "Sec. 269T", "Sec. 271D", "Sec. 271E", "Sec. 275(1)(c)", "Sec. 271B", "Sec. 271D", "Sec. 271E" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the audit report (Form 10B) is condonable, and whether the denial of exemption under sections

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

delay in filing Form 10B, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted condonation and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the exemption claim. Regarding the penalty under Section 271D, the Tribunal found it unsustainable due to the absence of a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and the initiation of penalty proceedings after the period of limitation.", "result": "Allowed

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

273B of the Act do not cover the defaults under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions

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

273B of the Act do not cover the defaults under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions

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

273B of the Act do not cover the defaults under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions

SYNDICATE RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MUTUALLY AIDED COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 3 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a society involved in the business of banking / providing credit facility to its members and others. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for CASS

SYNDICATE RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MUTUALLY AIDED COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 3 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a society involved in the business of banking / providing credit facility to its members and others. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for CASS

NARESH KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.547/Hyd/2025 3 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who had not filed any return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Based on AIR information

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

273B of the Act is incorrect. Accordingly, ground no.8 of the appeal is dismissed. Further, the appellant has failed to submit any proper reason with documentary evidences which were beyond its control for not responding to the said notice and mere ill health of the accountant is not a sufficient cause for failure to comply the notices and the appellant

A Z DEVELOPERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay in compliance should be condoned as per the relaxation provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was further contended that the default was neither willful nor intentional but was caused by the genuine difficulties faced during the pandemic. 5. On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) supported the orders of the lower authorities, contending that

THE CUMBUM CO-OPERATIVE TOWN BANK LIMITED ,PRAKASAM vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (I&CI), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Cumbum Co-Operative Town Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Bank Limited, Of Income Tax (Intelligence Cumbum & Criminal Investigation), Prakasam District. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabat3057A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.08.2022

condoned the delay of submissions of Annual Information Return as it was the first time to seek such information by the Income Tax Department and the Appellant made a sincere attempt and submitted information through "ito.hq.intel.h" 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have considered the difficulties generally being faced by the mufcil banks in compliance