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

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and see no reason to express our agreement with the Revenue’s stand. The assessee’s twin condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s) have already attributed the reason of the impugned delay(s) to its tax consultant’s resignation and communication

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and see no reason to express our agreement with the Revenue’s stand. The assessee’s twin condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s) have already attributed the reason of the impugned delay(s) to its tax consultant’s resignation and communication

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and see no reason to express our agreement with the Revenue’s stand. The assessee’s twin condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s) have already attributed the reason of the impugned delay(s) to its tax consultant’s resignation and communication

STAR ORGANIC FOODS INC,NELLORE vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the delay in filing of the 5 ITA.No.715/Hyd./2025 appeal should not be condoned. The learned DR further submitted that, the assessee is a non-complaint to all proceedings, which is evident from the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) where the assessee had not filed

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

10. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of above two case laws considered hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay, does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge delay

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

10. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of above two case laws considered hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay, does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge delay

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

10 ITA.No.154/Hyd./2021 the learned CIT(A) was passed on 31.08.2018 and the limitation to file the appeal expired on 30.10.2018 itself and, therefore, the Covid-2019 pandemic has no role or bearing on the delay in filing the present appeal which was already time barred in the year 2018 itself. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

38,670/-. On credible information that assessee and one Chetan Agarwal are regularly conducting dabba trading search and seizure operation u/s 132 has been conducted on 17.03.2020 in the office cum residential premises of the assessee. During course of search and seizure operation cash of Rs.2,11,82,000 was found and out which an amount of Rs.2

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

38,700/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

38,700/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

38,700/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

38,700/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

38,700/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

38,700/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

38,700/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 raising a total demand

DANDEBOINA RAMESH,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-(1), WARANGAL

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

condoned the delay in filing appeal before him and considered the appeal on merits.\n3. The learned CIT A failed to appreciate that the impugned asst order has been done arbitrarily, Indiscreetly, making huge and high-pitched additions.\n4. The learned CITA ought to have appreciated the facts before him and given an opportunity to the assessee to represent