ITAT Hyderabad Bench
10,989 judgments
SANDEEP KUMAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD
the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee did not make any compliances to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
SRI LAKSHMI FINANCE,NALGONDA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NALGONDA
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
BALAJI INDUSTRAL CORPORATION LIMITED,NELLORE vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NELLORE
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)
(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD
(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM, REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member)
(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs DCIT-CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member)
BHANUCHANDER GOUD PUTTA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(1), HYDERABAD
us: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs.43,58,300/- in the assessment order treating the business turnover as unexplained money U/s.69A.
JAGADESSHWAR RAO CHIDARA,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE- 2(1), HYDERABAD
us: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the addition made in the assessment order.
SARITHA SHARMA,KARIMNAGAR vs ITO, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
ARYA VYSYA TRUST,VIKARABAD vs ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD
SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD
us: "1. The order of the Learned. CIT(A) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.
KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
GRAVTON MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD
KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
R VIDYASAGAR RAO,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)
CODINGFORALL FOUNDATION,SECUNDERABAD vs CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD.
RAJEEV SINDHI,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)
SUNEETHA MARTHALA,KAVALI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE
the learned CIT(A) that already she informed the authorities, by way of letter dated 22/12/2022 that she had no taxable income at all and she being an agriculturist, is unable to pay the requisite advance tax and in as much as she is ready to prove her claim that she has no taxable income, it would cause hardship to her, if the payment of advance tax is put as a condition for entertaining the appeal. In the impugned order, though the learned CIT(A) referred to the provisions under Section 2
DAGGUBATI VENKATESH,CHENNAI vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD
ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs INDRANI PRASAD, , NEW DELHI
SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
