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

115 and 116 to 118/Hyd./2025 Assessment Years 2016-2017, 2018-2019 And, 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 The Zoos and Parks The Deputy Commissioner Authority of Telangana, of Income Tax, Hyderabad - 500 064. vs. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. PAN AAEAT0231H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR Date

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

115 and 116 to 118/Hyd./2025 Assessment Years 2016-2017, 2018-2019 And, 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 The Zoos and Parks The Deputy Commissioner Authority of Telangana, of Income Tax, Hyderabad - 500 064. vs. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. PAN AAEAT0231H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR Date

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

115 and 116 to 118/Hyd./2025 Assessment Years 2016-2017, 2018-2019 And, 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 The Zoos and Parks The Deputy Commissioner Authority of Telangana, of Income Tax, Hyderabad - 500 064. vs. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. PAN AAEAT0231H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR Date

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

115 and 116 to 118/Hyd./2025 Assessment Years 2016-2017, 2018-2019 And, 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 The Zoos and Parks The Deputy Commissioner Authority of Telangana, of Income Tax, Hyderabad - 500 064. vs. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. PAN AAEAT0231H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR Date

SREE RAYALASEEMA GALAXY PROJECTS PVT LTD., KURNOOL,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

condoning the delay, even though the reasons given by the appellant does not fall under reasonable cause. Referring to the additions made by the AO towards disallowance of trade discount, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that generally, trade discounts are granted by deduction in invoice only and not by way of allowing trade discount

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. SREE RAYALASEEMA GALAXY PROJECTS PVT LTD , KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

condoning the delay, even though the reasons given by the appellant does not fall under reasonable cause. Referring to the additions made by the AO towards disallowance of trade discount, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that generally, trade discounts are granted by deduction in invoice only and not by way of allowing trade discount

QVANTEL SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Qvantel Software Vs. Income Tax Officer Solutions Ltd, Hyderabad Ward 16(3) Pan:Aaacq1480D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.08.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act 1956 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Software Development, System Architecture, Design, Implementation, Integration, Verification, Maintenance & Other Services In The Field Of Computing, Software Engineering, Instrumentation & Telecommunication Systems.

Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form 10-IC for Assessment Year 2020-21- Reg. Section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 w.e.f. 01.04.2020. As per the Section, the income-tax payable in respect of the total

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

delay in filing this appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond their control. Hence, the same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee who is an individual filed her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 admitting a total income

ROCKWELL COLLINS (INDIA) ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts regarding correctness of the learned PCIT’s action assuming sec 263 revision jurisdiction thereby terming the re-assessment herein dated 31.12.2017 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. This assessee is a company engaged in software development services

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