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

MALIREDDI SRINATH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HDYERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the submissions made by the assessee, held that the appeal was filed 4 Malreddy Srinath beyond the period prescribed under Section 249(2) of the Act and that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessment order

VENKATA SUJATHA CHRUVUPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

127 of the Act concerning the Petitioner from the AO of Circle VIII to the AO of Circle 8(1), New Delhi. On 29th September 2013, the Assessee filed its returns of income in the office of the AO of Circle 8(1) declaring a loss. On 3rd September, 2014, Respondent No. 2, who happens to be ACIT, Circle

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 2,996\ndays in filing the appeal and direct that the appeal be admitted for\nadjudication on merits.\n10. In addition to the aforesaid facts, the specific facts related to this appeal\nare that, pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated\n25.07.2014 restoring the appeal arising from the assessment order dated\n29.03.2004

ASIAN TOURS AND TRAVELS,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Asian Tours & Travels, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad, Ward-10(1), 9-4-212/94, Opp To Hyderabad. Railway Station, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500003. Pan : Aakfa8752H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “ 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Commissioner in considering the maxim ignoratia juris non excusat, while refusing

THILAK BABU BOPPANA,CHITTOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 11. Shri M.M. Shahid Sameer, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for framing the assessment vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2013-14) 1. M/S. Desu Enterprises, Ongole (A.P.) Pan: Aagfd1940C 2. Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam. Pan: Αιτpg3044K (Appellants) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. (Respondents) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr & Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Desu Enterprises & Shri Thalla Srisailam Goud (“The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.02.2024 & 09.04.2024 For The A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

127 A of the Rules 1962 which provides a procedure for issuance of every notice or other document and the e-mail in [2022] 444 I.T.R. 41 (All.) PSK,J & NTR,J wp_18098_2022&batch electronic form/electronic mail which has to be issued from the designated e-mail address of such income tax authority. 20. Thus, after digitally signing

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

127 A of the Rules 1962 which provides a procedure for issuance of every notice or other document and the e-mail in [2022] 444 I.T.R. 41 (All.) PSK,J & NTR,J wp_18098_2022&batch electronic form/electronic mail which has to be issued from the designated e-mail address of such income tax authority. 20. Thus, after digitally signing

TRENDSET SUMANJALI WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , 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.935/Hyd/2025 [U/Sec.12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961] Trendset Sumanjali The Commissioner Of Welfare Association, Income Tax (Exemptions), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaiat3303J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

2. There is a delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the Affidavit of the General Secretary of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E) was not served

MAYUR STONES, HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

2 of 8 ITA Nos 1092 and 1093 of 2024 Mayur Stones 4. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 326 days in filing of these appeals. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit duly signed by the Managing Partner of the assessee. The learned

MAYUR STONES, HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

2 of 8 ITA Nos 1092 and 1093 of 2024 Mayur Stones 4. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 326 days in filing of these appeals. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit duly signed by the Managing Partner of the assessee. The learned

MANAVADARIYA DHARMENDRA KANTILAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

condoned and the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 11. Per contra, Dr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“DR”), submitted that the notices intimating fixation of hearing and the appellate order were validly served upon the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that as per Section 282(1)(c) of the Act r.w Rule 127

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

127 of the Rules, and therefore Appellant could not put forth the case. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.6,94,004 as income from business. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not properly appreciated that the discount received are property

ASIF ALI MOHD,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, ITA.No.407/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 128 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for condonation of delay to the effect that the order of the learned CIT(A) was not served upon the assessee and that the order has been sent to wrong email

ASIF ALI MOHD,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, ITA.No.407/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 128 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for condonation of delay to the effect that the order of the learned CIT(A) was not served upon the assessee and that the order has been sent to wrong email

NNF - STATE CHAPTER,HYDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing)

condone the delay of 11 days in the filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 5. The assessee has raised seven grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that the Ld. CIT (E), Hyderabad has erred in rejecting the application in Form No. 10 A & Form