COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

depreciation.\n11. Recompute the cost of asset as per the provisions of section 43A.\n12. Details of investments in share capital (including share application money) made\nduring the year, including the number of shares, face value of the share and price\npaid per share. Also furnish the details of dividends received, if any, during the year.\n13. Quantitative and value

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

2) of\nthe Act.\n\n4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was\nobserved by the A.O. that the assessee company in the course of its\nbusiness procured milk and processed the same into milk (toned etc.),\nand was also into manufacturing of milk by-products such as\n\nskimmed milk, condensed milk, skimmed milk powder, curd, paneer

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

depreciation of Rs. 83,54,180 while computing the impugned tax demand of Rs. 6,80,57,929, hence the same shall qualify for deletion. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding the order of the learned assessing officer by not giving credit to the TDS related to the disputed Assessment Year while computing

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

249 | | 387,000 | 26,511,692 |\n| 10th | 7,457,965 | 250,000 | 1,622,635 | 301,000 | 1,547,495 | 496,000 | | | 11,725,100 |\n| 11th | 3,524,072 | 271,920 | 1,721,200 | 2,322,092 | 2,051,085 | 250,000 | 312,515 | | 11,722,884 |\n| 12th

KRANTI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos 645 & 646/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kranti Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-1 Pan:Aaaak6913B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P.Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/07/2024 आदेश/Order

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an educational society but does not have registration either u/s 12A Page 1 of 5 ITA Nos 645 and 646 of 2024 Kranti Educational Society or approval u/s 10(23C) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee filed its return of income for both the A.Ys

KRANTI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the A

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos 645 & 646/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kranti Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-1 Pan:Aaaak6913B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P.Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/07/2024 आदेश/Order

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an educational society but does not have registration either u/s 12A Page 1 of 5 ITA Nos 645 and 646 of 2024 Kranti Educational Society or approval u/s 10(23C) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee filed its return of income for both the A.Ys

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing