BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.\n12.1.\n12.2.\n12. Appellant

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

VUPPALA RAJ KUMAR, SIDDIPET,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIDDIPET, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10

u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 165 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating as under: “BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: -BENCH : HYDERABAD I.T.A.NO. A.Y. 2009-10 VUPPALA RAJ KUMAR Hon'ble Pr.CIT

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 10. Coming to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT for revising the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT had gravely erred in law and facts

SRK INFRACON (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(3), HYDERABADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

revised the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dt.20.12.2016 for A.Y. 2014-15 as the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the assessee has sought to challenge the order passed

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 of the Act on 30.03.2022 is devoid of merit and contrary to the facts available on record. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing appeal does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause”. 8. Having said so, let us come back to the second reason given

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

263 of the Act on 30.03.2022 is devoid of merit and contrary to the facts available on record. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing appeal does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause”. 8. Having said so, let us come back to the second reason given

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act dt.28.03.2016 determining the revised total income or loss of the assessee at (-) Rs.49,56,900/- interalia making an addition of Rs.22,13,080/- towards unexplained cost of construction of building by invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Aggrieved with the same, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee are condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged