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

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

SEVEN HILLS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., (EXEMPTIONS) - WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha .G, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleआ.अऩी.सं / Ita No. 858/Hyd/2024 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2024-25)

02-Sub-clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A” instead of section code 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act, and the assessee does not stand to gain by such mistake and, therefore, the mistake may be condoned and learned CIT(E) may be directed to grant regular registration. 6. Basing on the orders

VEERABALLI NAGA BASI REDDY,KADAPA vs. ITO., WARD - 1, KADAPA.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.451/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 1, Kadapa. Kadapa. Pan: Aszpr1589G (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.12.2024

section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Subsequently, based on the information available in ITBA portal, that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.22,57,800/- in bank account during demonetization period, that the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income of ITA No.451/Hyd/2025 2 the had escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

JAGADESSHWAR RAO CHIDARA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 29/12/2017 determined his total income at Rs. 9,46,180/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities on 07 occasions by the CIT(A), had neither participated in the appellate proceedings nor furnished

PULLARAO PERUGU,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

02-02-2022 were issued. The assessee neither filed his return of income nor furnished relevant details in response to the notices. Therefore, notice under Section 144(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued and proposed best judgment assessment. The assessee neither responded nor furnished the relevant details. Therefore, the A.O. completed the assessment under Section

CHETNA ORGANIC FARMERS ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

02-Sub clause (i) of clause (ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A of the Act, by bringing the mistake to the notice of the authorities, since the assessee holds the registration under section 12A of the Act. When the CBDT took cognizance of the matter and by way of circulars extended the due date for filing Form

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED CHINNA GOLKONDA,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

02-2025 filed in support thereof. The ld.AR submitted that during the relevant period, i.e. the end of November 2024, the concerned officials of the assessee society were involved in compilation of data which was to be presented and discussed in the Managing Committee meeting of the assessee society that was scheduled for 02.12.2024. The ld. AR submitted that

UNICORPUS HEALTH FOUNDATION,SECUNDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble Accountnt Member आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1292/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Unicorpus Health Commissioner Of Income Tax Foundation Vs. (Exemptions) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcu8838L] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

02-Sub clause (i) of clause (ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A of the Act, by bringing the mistake to the notice of the authorities, since the assessee holds the registration under section 12A of the Act. When the CBDT took cognizance of the matter and by way of circulars extended the due date for filing Form

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

02,94,670/- .”. 2. The assessee also filed a petition for admission of additional grounds, and the relevant additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under: 3 “1. The learned Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act on 26.03.2019, assuming that the consortium in which the assessee is a member filed an affidavit before

HITEC CYBERSPAZIO LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay in filing of appeal even though the appellant firm has valid and sufficient reasons for occurrence of such delay. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have accorded a further opportunity of being heard before rejecting such plea in view of principles of natural Justice. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal