LAXMI VENKATA KRISHNA RICE CORPORATION,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

234A and 234B of the 1.T.Act; 9) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”. 2. Also, the assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal, which reads as under: "The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the notice u/s 148A(b), the order u/s 148A(d) and the notice

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment as referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be; From the above provisions of Section 234A

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment as referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be; From the above provisions of Section 234A

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment as referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be; From the above provisions of Section 234A

SAXON GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is not leviable and ought to have been waived on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave of your Honours to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings for the AY 2013-14. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the order passed by the learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre u/s 147 rws 144 & 1448 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings for the AY 2013-14. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the order passed by the learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre u/s 147 rws 144 & 1448 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 which is erroneous

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D was levied as per law. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 8 Gainsight Software Private Limited 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Alisagar Rampurawala, C.A., referring to the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

234A / 234B (Tax Effect: ₹1,33,82,860/-) 7.1. Interest wrongly levied. 8. Penalty Proceedings 8.1. Penalty initiated under Section 274 r.w.s. Section 270A is bad in law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, CallidusCloud India Private Limited, is engaged in the business of providing sales support, marketing and consulting services and software development

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

234A and 234B of the Act without appreciating the fact that tax payable has arisen on account of adjustments made above. 20.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under- reporting and misreporting of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter

YADIKI PACS,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

234A of the Act in consequence to the above.” 3 Yadiki PACS 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Trust, has not filed its return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the A.Y. 2019-20. As per the information available with the Department through

RAMESH SISTLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess such income or recompute the loss or the\ndepreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17\nand I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in\nthe prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17.\n\nLAXMI PAVANA GAYATHRI MUKKERA\nCIRCLE 1, KARIMNAGAR

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234A, 234B & 234C for levy of interest for the AY under consideration as the same are not applicable since there will be no demand after consideration of taxes.” 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 374 to 376/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 are identical except the amounts involved in and hence

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234A, 234B & 234C for levy of interest for the AY under consideration as the same are not applicable since there will be no demand after consideration of taxes.” 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 374 to 376/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 are identical except the amounts involved in and hence

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234A, 234B & 234C for levy of interest for the AY under consideration as the same are not applicable since there will be no demand after consideration of taxes.” 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 374 to 376/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 are identical except the amounts involved in and hence

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234A, 234B & 234C for levy of interest for the AY under consideration as the same are not applicable since there will be no demand after consideration of taxes.” 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 374 to 376/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 are identical except the amounts involved in and hence

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234A, 234B & 234C for levy of interest for the AY under consideration as the same are not applicable since there will be no demand after consideration of taxes.” 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 374 to 376/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 are identical except the amounts involved in and hence

DEEPTI SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,HINDUPUR vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI,

Bench: Us:

reassessment proceedings and failed to initiate appropriate remedial action in a timely manner in this regard. 1.10 The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in levying consequential interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1.11 The appellant seeks your leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Apart from