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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY WANKIDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, MANCHIRIAL

Bench: Us:

delay occurred due to reasonable cause and the claim is otherwise legally allowable. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition under section 143(1)(a)(ii) was made on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of section 80AC read with section 80P and judicial precedents, resulting in undue hardship to the Appellant. 3 Primary Agriculture Cooperative