PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

COGNIZANCE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section\n271(1)(c), section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Act.\n12. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing\nwith the approval of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.”\n3.\nThe assessee company did not file it's return of\nincome u/sec.139 of the Income

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: ITA No. 1659/H/17 This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 1, Hyderabad, dated 01/06/2017 for AY 2007-08. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual engaged in the business of running a Kirana and General Stores, filed

NAVEEN KUMAR KAPARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: ITA No. 1659/H/17 This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 1, Hyderabad, dated 01/06/2017 for AY 2007-08. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual engaged in the business of running a Kirana and General Stores, filed

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This is appeal filed by the Assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 26.02.2021 for the AY 2017-18, on the following grounds 1. The order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Bengaluru (DRP), dismissing the objection

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. INDRANI PRASAD , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

271 (l)(G), 271A and 2718. Section 158 BFA provides [or levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on .or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BO specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

INDRANI PRASAD ,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

271 (l)(G), 271A and 2718. Section 158 BFA provides [or levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on .or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BO specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material