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

PURNA CHANDER RAGAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above observations

Bench: Us:

114 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, 4 Purna Chander Ragam vs. ITO had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay of 33 days

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

condone the delay involved in the\nfiling of the present appeal.\n16. Coming to the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the\nassessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing\nof pharmaceuticals, was originally assessed by the AO vide his order\npassed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/12/2018, wherein, after\nexhaustive deliberations

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

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

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

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

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

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

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

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

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

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

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

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

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

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

PUTHA BHAGYA LAKSHMI,KADAPA vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1780/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Putha Bhagya Vs. Income Tax Officer Lakshmi Ward 15(1) Kadapa Hyderabad Pan:Amxpp6295K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Snsr Chinmai राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri A. Suresh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

condone the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law; 2) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the notice u/s 148 issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIVA PRASAD NIDAMARTHY, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Income Tax (Osd), Hyderabad Circle-5(1) / [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent सी.ओ./ C.O. Nos. 14 & 15/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021) निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Vs [Erstwhile Circle-16(1)] [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Hyderabad क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्टर / Cross-Objector प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.N. Murthy, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Challenging The Order(S) Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Cit(A)”) In The Case Of Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy (“The Assessee”) For

condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. Two additions are in question in this appeal. One is in respect of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,53,000/- under section 69A of the Act and the other is Rs. 2.35 crores under section 68 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIVA PRASAD NIDAMARTHY ,HYDERABAD , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Income Tax (Osd), Hyderabad Circle-5(1) / [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent सी.ओ./ C.O. Nos. 14 & 15/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 114 & 94/Hyd/2021) निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy, Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Vs [Erstwhile Circle-16(1)] [Pan No. Abvpn0435E] Hyderabad क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्टर / Cross-Objector प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.N. Murthy, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 26/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Challenging The Order(S) Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Cit(A)”) In The Case Of Sri Siva Prasad Nidamarthy (“The Assessee”) For

condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. Two additions are in question in this appeal. One is in respect of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,53,000/- under section 69A of the Act and the other is Rs. 2.35 crores under section 68 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that

TOUCH TONE TELESERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 987/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Touch Tone Teleservices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 3-6-550/4, 1St Floor, Ward-4(1), Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aacft5196N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays a presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced when, If produced, be 4 Touch Tone Teleservices vs. ITO unfavorable to the person who withholds it. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect

ACIT., (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE YACHT CLUB OF HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 143(1) of the Act. She placed reliance on various decisions including the one in the case of ITO vs. Ramji mandir religious and charitable Trust (2024) 158 Taxmann.com 114 (Ahmedabad-Trib) in support of her contention. Apart from this, assessee also produced a copy of the order dated 24/08/2023 passed by the learned CIT(E) condoning the delay