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

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

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

PRASANTH PUTTAMAREDDY,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 271(1)(c) with a delay of 120 days and explained the very same reason that he is out of the country and only after knowing the fact that the relatives informed him about the notice, he went to the office and filed the appeal and in that process, it has resulted in delay of 120 days

PRASANTH PUTTAMAREDDY,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 271(1)(c) with a delay of 120 days and explained the very same reason that he is out of the country and only after knowing the fact that the relatives informed him about the notice, he went to the office and filed the appeal and in that process, it has resulted in delay of 120 days

SRI RAGHVENDRA AGRO INDUSTRIES,MANTRALAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, ADONI

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

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Sworn By Shri Archaka Vyasarajachar, Partner Of The Assessee Firm, Explaining The Facts Relating To Filing Of The Appeal. As Per The Affidavit, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Served On The Assessee On 25.09.2024 & The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 24.11.2024. The Assessee Submitted That, Form No. 36, As Per The Prescribed Procedure, Was Filed Electronically On 20.11.2024, Which Is Within The Period Of Limitation.

120/- was raised. 5 Sri Raghavendra Agro Industries 7. Aggrieved by the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal challenging the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act and also sought condonation of delay

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

MADURAI TUTICORIN EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

120 Srimaan Industries Private Limited vs ITO The above facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 4. At the outset, we note that for the assessment year 2016-2017 in ITA.No.1110/Hyd./2025, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered the delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

120 Srimaan Industries Private Limited vs ITO The above facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 4. At the outset, we note that for the assessment year 2016-2017 in ITA.No.1110/Hyd./2025, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered the delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

120 Srimaan Industries Private Limited vs ITO The above facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 4. At the outset, we note that for the assessment year 2016-2017 in ITA.No.1110/Hyd./2025, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case has considered the delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

MOHAN REDDY GADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

condonation\nof delay, so that substantial justice is not defeated on technical\ngrounds. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka\nHigh Court in CIT & Anr. Vs. ISRO Satellite Centre [2013] 263\nCTR (Kar) 549 and by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in Srimaan\nIndustries Private Limited Vs. ITO [2022] 217 TTJ (Hyd) 120.\nRespectfully following the aforesaid

BALAJI FINANCE,GAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

delay of 89 days in\nfiling the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for\nadjudication on merits.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\na) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned CIT A is\nerroneous and bad in law.\nb) On the facts and in the circumstances

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