ITAT Hyderabad Bench
10,989 judgments
MOHD AZGAR ALI,NALGONDA vs ITO., WARD-1, NALGONDA
SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)
GANGAMAGROTECH,HINDUPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HINDUPUR
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member)
SESHAM RAMANAIAH,PRAKASAM vs ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD
Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)
VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD
INVESCO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD vs SR PEDDI ESTATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
DEEPAK SINGHAL,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
MAZHER ALI KHAN,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD
SANJEEVA REDDY SIRIGIRI,NALGONDA vs ITO., WARD-1, NALGONDA
Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)
CASPIAN IMPACT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD
Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)
RONDLA PUSHPASENA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL
Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)
MEENAKSHI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD
Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)
CH MARTHANDA RAO & CO,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD
CH MARTHANDA RAO AND CO,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD
us: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is erroneous in law as well as the facts of the case.
KALPANA VEERA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD
us: Grounds of Appeal 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order is erroneous in facts and law.
KOTTI CHANDRAPRAKASH,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD
MAHESH KATRAGADDA,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD
SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)
VIDYAVATHI PALURU,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD
us: Grounds of Appeal 1. The Order of the ld CIT (Appeal) is contrary to law and the facts.2. The ld CIT(A) erred in holding that Assessee has not responded to the notices on the dates mentioned in the notices, while the ld CIT(A) admitted the fact of compliance of his notices by the Assessee along with written submissions.3. The ld CIT(A) ought to have noted that Assessee has filed detailed written submissions along with the supporting evidence in compliance to the subject notices referred
