KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

253(5) of\nthe Act, we hereby condone the delay of 583 days in filing the\npresent appeals as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause\nfor not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time and the\nappeals are hereby admitted for adjudication on merits.”\n4.2.\nTherefore, the Tribunal has considered the\nexplanation of the assessee as 'sufficient cause

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

253 or an appeal to the High Court\nunder section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under\nsection 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and\nan order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling\npenalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of\npenalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

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

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

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

In the result, three appeals i

property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings or any other proceedings in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA KAZA, HYDERABAD

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

house, maintenance charges collection, the maintenance of the project by the developer, the, contribution to corpus fund etc (from paragraphs 2 to 18 of the agreement). The only point of the no objection comes in para 1 where the second party (earlier developer assigned its rights). When land owners and the developer are coming up with new terms, saying this

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA KAZA, , PEDAGONNURU

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

house, maintenance charges collection, the maintenance of the project by the developer, the, contribution to corpus fund etc (from paragraphs 2 to 18 of the agreement). The only point of the no objection comes in para 1 where the second party (earlier developer assigned its rights). When land owners and the developer are coming up with new terms, saying this

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

house bearing Municipal No.17-1- 336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N. Reddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of Rs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this transaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s.271D. Section

VIATON ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

253 and Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170. 7. Learned CIT(A) elaborately considered the submissions on all these aspects. He considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Bokaro Steel Ltd., (supra), Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro Chemicals

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

3 Building Penalization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.11,54,441/- Rs.2,20,886/- Rs.12,05,651/- Rs.10,355/- Nil completely offered as receipt for the year under consideration 11. The appellant humbly submits that in so far as the Development charges is concerned, in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue it is mentioned that the Assessing officer