ITAT Hyderabad Bench
10,989 judgments
GUPTA ASHOK KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD
SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)
SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
M/S EAGLE CONSULTANCY SERVICES,EAST ANAND BAGH, MALKAJGIRI, HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(1), HYDERABAD
Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)
C5 INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD
Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member)
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs VEDULA VENKATA RAMANA,, HYDERABAD
Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.1555/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2014-15) | ACIT Circle 9 (1) Hyderabad (Appellant) | Vs. | Shri Vedula Venkata Ramana, Hyderabad PAN:ABHPV1213Е (Respondent) | | :-------------------------------------- | :-- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue by:: | | Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT (DR) | |
KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD
Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.912/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19) | M/s. Kineta Global Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AACCK7944A (Appellant) | Vs. | Dy.CIT Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) | |---|---|---| | निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee by: | Shri S Venkateswarulu, CA | | | राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue by:: | Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT (DR) | | | सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: | 24/07/2025 | | | घोषणा की तारीख / Pron
JAIN FOUNDATION,SECUNDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)
JAIN FOUNDATION,SECUNDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)
SHUBHAM TRADING COMPANY,NIZAMABAD vs ITO., WARD 1, NIZAMABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
FEHMICARE FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD
FEHMICARE FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
STAR ORGANIC FOODS INC,NELLORE vs ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE
the learned CIT(A). But, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash withdrawals under Section 69A of the Act.
GOVARDHANA GIRISHWARA DEVASTHANAM TRUST,TIRUPATI vs CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD
us: 1. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad erred in outrightly dismissing the Assessee's application on wholly untenable grounds as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad failed to realize that the notices dated 10-10-2024 and 26-12-2024 were replied promptly though they were sent after the expiry of the limitation period as stipulated by the Finance Act, 2020 and by the CBDT circular No. 7 of 2024 dated 25-04-2024.
THE MAHATMA CHARITABLE TRUST,GUNTUR vs CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD
SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)
RITHWIK SWATHI JOINT VENTURE,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE- 6(1), HYDERABDA
us: "1. The order of the CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 23-01-2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudice to the interests of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing Bank guarantee commission expenses of Rs.74,18,621/- incurred by the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the bank guarantee have been issued by the principle contractor i.e. Progressive Construction Ltd on behalf of the assessee. 4. The Ld
MOHD YOUNUS,HYDERABAD vs ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD
SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)
GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD
us: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as on facts of the case and has erred in upholding the order of the AO.
GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD
us: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as on facts of the case and has erred in upholding the order of the AO.
GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD
us: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as on facts of the case and has erred in upholding the order of the AO.
