ITAT Hyderabad Bench
10,988 judgments
DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDRABAD vs KALPTARU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD
HYDERABAD SCIENCE SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G. (Accountant Member)
PABBAREDDY KODANDARAMIREDDY,NELLORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NELLORE
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)
MERIDIAN MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD
VALUELABS LLP,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD
3K TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD 2-(2), HYDERABAD
PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD
the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3
ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD vs SRINIVAS RAO DONTINENI, MEDAK
Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)
PEDAVEETI SWATHI,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)
PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM
MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD
the Tribunal. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with affidavits explaining the reasons contending, inter alia, that the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation due to miscommunication and misguidance with the appointed learned counsel regarding the case proceedings to the assessee. Further, the Appellant, relied entirely on the learned counsel and the company's internal accounting staff for updates and developments, was under the bona fide impress
MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD
the Tribunal. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with affidavits explaining the reasons contending, inter alia, that the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation due to miscommunication and misguidance with the appointed learned counsel regarding the case proceedings to the assessee. Further, the Appellant, relied entirely on the learned counsel and the company's internal accounting staff for updates and developments, was under the bona fide impress
NTT MANAGED SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
CHAITANYA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)
GOPAL REDDY GATTU,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD
MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G. (Accountant Member)
ZAHEER AHMED SYED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CC-2(2), HYDERABAD
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)
