<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 1474 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769560</link>
    <description>ITAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal for condonation of 445 days delay in filing appeal against PCIT&#039;s order u/s 263. The tribunal rejected appellant&#039;s contentions that it was unaware of PCIT&#039;s order, noting the company had filed RTI application and participated in proceedings. The tribunal also dismissed arguments regarding Managing Director&#039;s illness, stating other directors could have acted, and found the remaining 79 days delay after excluding Covid period insufficient for condonation. On merits, the tribunal held JV constituents eligible for section 80IA deduction and remitted the matter to AO for verification of back-to-back agreements regarding proportionate project execution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2025 10:23:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=817793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1474 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769560</link>
      <description>ITAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal for condonation of 445 days delay in filing appeal against PCIT&#039;s order u/s 263. The tribunal rejected appellant&#039;s contentions that it was unaware of PCIT&#039;s order, noting the company had filed RTI application and participated in proceedings. The tribunal also dismissed arguments regarding Managing Director&#039;s illness, stating other directors could have acted, and found the remaining 79 days delay after excluding Covid period insufficient for condonation. On merits, the tribunal held JV constituents eligible for section 80IA deduction and remitted the matter to AO for verification of back-to-back agreements regarding proportionate project execution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>