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

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\n4.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

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

In the result, three appeals i

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in\nfiling of the Audit Report in Form No. 10B, which is due to\na reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of\nthe appellant.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant\nhas not given any reasonable cause for delay in filing the\nappeal by over

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 143(1) of the Act dt.14.05.2019 passed by the CPC for A.Y. 2017-18. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi, vide CBDT Notification No.139/2021 dt.28.12.2021, wherein the NFAC, Delhi after considering

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 143(1) of the Act dt.14.05.2019 passed by the CPC for A.Y. 2017-18. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi, vide CBDT Notification No.139/2021 dt.28.12.2021, wherein the NFAC, Delhi after considering

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

disallowed claim to an extent of Rs.4,74,2747. 7. It is submitted that the assessment passed on 11.11.2011 under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO got merged with the subsequent reassessment order passed subsequently on 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) rws 153A of the Act. It is further submitted that the order passed under section

RAIN CEMENTS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

246A of the Act from the date of service of the Intimation, which in the present case was 24.01.2020, when upon a specific request of the Appellant, the same was provided to the Appellant. 5. That the CIT(A) also erred in taking a rather pedantic of the reasons explained for the delay of approximately 3 months, by relying upon

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABADQ

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

246A of the Act before ld.CIT(A)-3, who vide order dt.31.05.2022 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted that due to delay of two days in filing return of income

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

246A of the Act before ld.CIT(A)-3, who vide order dt.31.05.2022 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted that due to delay of two days in filing return of income