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)

12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee did not avail the opportunity of extension of time for filing application in Form 10A, if really its intention is to apply for 02-Sub clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Act, by bringing the mistake to the notice

RR MARKETING,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present\nappeal.\nWe have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both\nparties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material\navailable on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements\nthat have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his\ncontentions.\nShri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate

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

12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee did not avail the opportunity of extension of time for filing application in Form 10A, if really its intention is to apply for 02-Sub clause (i) of clause (ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A of the Act, by bringing the mistake to the notice

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

condone the delay in filing Form 10B as per Instruction No.F.No.267/482/77-IT(part) dated 09.02.1978. 7. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4 ITA Nos.1210 and 1211/Hyd/2025 & C.O. Nos.27 and 28/Hyd/2025 National Institute of Rural Development & Pranchayati Raj 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, National Institute of Rural Development

SANZYME PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

BIKARAM PUSHPENDER,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

LINGAMGUNTA ADILAXMI,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

RAGHU ALEKH BARLI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

12) ТМІ 1616-\nITAT MUMBAI.\nc) Seema Promoters and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT\n2022 (11) ТМІ 1289-ITAT Mumbai.\nd) Shivsagar Estates (AOP) Versus CIT ([1993] 204 ITR 1).\n10.2.\nThe learned Authorised Representative of the\nAssessee has thus submitted that the substance of the\ntransaction would prevail over its form and therefore, the\ntransaction is required

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

12,50,00,000/- (paper book page no. 243) towards allotment of equity share in the assessee company during the relevant assessment year and the overall aggregate investment in equity shares is Rs, 39,63,25,600/- (ii) The Ld. AR’s submission that Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna is a promotor of the assessee company is not disputed. (iii) Page

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

12,50,00,000/- (paper book page no. 243) towards allotment of equity share in the assessee company during the relevant assessment year and the overall aggregate investment in equity shares is Rs, 39,63,25,600/- (ii) The Ld. AR’s submission that Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna is a promotor of the assessee company is not disputed. (iii) Page

SRI AJEYA SANKARA TRUST,TIRUPATI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1366/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Ajeya Sankara Trust Vs. Cit (Exemption) Tirupati Hyderabad Pan:Aaxts2264F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H. Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 17/05/2025 Of Cit (Exemption) Whereby The Application Of The Assessee In Form 10Ab Seeking Regular Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Was Rejected On The Ground Of Barred By Limitation.

condonation of the delay, if there is a reasonable cause for filing the application. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the amendment of inserting the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) and the cause of delay in filing the application has been explained by the assessee, the same may be treated as filed

GOVARDHANA GIRISHWARA DEVASTHANAM TRUST,TIRUPATI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

ac) of Section 12 A of the Act. The Assessee further submits that the reason for delay of 60 days in its submission of the application for regular registration under section 12 AB of the Act is completely bona fide and the delay is neither wanton nor wiliful so the mechanical rejection of the Assessee's application

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

12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee did not avail the opportunity of extension of time for filing application in Form 10A, if really its intention is to apply for 02-Sub clause (i) of clause (ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A of the Act, by bringing the mistake to the notice

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

12. We may, here itself notice that the distinction in interpreting a taxing provision (charging provision) and in the matter of interpretation of exemption notification is too obvious to require any elaboration. Nonetheless, in a nutshell, we may mention that, as observed in Surendra Cotton Oil Mills Case (supra), in the matter of interpretation of charging section of a taxation

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

12. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties regarding the delay of 53 days involved in filing of the present appeal before us. In our view, as there are justifiable reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. Our aforesaid view that