THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

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

80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. Society Limited VS. ITO 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

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

80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. Society Limited VS. ITO 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

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

80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. Society Limited VS. ITO 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised

MADURAI TUTICORIN EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. Society Limited VS. ITO 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED MINARPALLY,MINARPALLY VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

80P are not applicable to the assessment\nyear\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing\nthe return was due to the delay in completion of audit by the\nDistrict Co operative audit officer and was beyond the control of\nthe assessee.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the return

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and, held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such

GANGARAM REDDY TEKULAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., INT TAXN- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such

HARIPRIYA TEKUPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TXN - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such

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:

80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such

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:

80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The Hon'ble High Court answered the aforesaid issue, and held, that the “return of income” filed by the assessee beyond the period stipulated under Section 139(1) or Section 139(4) or Section 142(1) or Section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly

DY. COMMSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

section 132. He can always retract in such situation if he can show that the statement has been made on MIstaken belief of facts, he can retract from the statement if he can show that facts on the basis of which admission was made are incorrect”. In the case of the assessee, the circumstances explained by the assessee would clearly