BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

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).

133(6), the A.O. noticed that, the property was jointly held by the assessee and his wife and that the assessee had paid Rs. 81,60,303/- towards the purchase consideration. Since the assessee failed to appear or explain the source of investment despite repeated opportunities, the A.O. passed a best-judgment assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s

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).

133(6), the A.O. noticed that, the property was jointly held by the assessee and his wife and that the assessee had paid Rs. 81,60,303/- towards the purchase consideration. Since the assessee failed to appear or explain the source of investment despite repeated opportunities, the A.O. passed a best-judgment assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED CHINNA GOLKONDA,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

delay in filing of the present appeal, and considering the fact that the same is not inordinate condone the same. 5. Succinctly stated, the A.O. on the basis of data analysis and the information gathered during the phase of online verification under “Operation Clean Money”, observed that though the assessee society had during the subject year deposited substantial cash aggregating

SATYANARAYANA MURTHY KANCHARLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2122/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Murthy Kancharla Ward 12 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Alypk6305P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 8 ITA No 2122 of 2025 Satyanarayana Murthy Kancharla 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 8 ITA No 2122 of 2025 Satyanarayana Murthy Kancharla 6. The brief facts of the case

ANANTHA PVC PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.317/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1, Kurnool. Anantapur. Pan:Aagca0936J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. & Shri P. Rosi Reddy, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The

delay of 147 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.317/Hyd/2025 5 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of PVC pipes. It filed its return of income

MAISAMMA DEVATHA TEMPLE,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us :

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 27.03.2022 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. The order by the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act dt. 03.09.2024 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent

MURALI MOHAN VISWANADHUNI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay of 32 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and to admit the appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not raising any objection on the delay in presenting the appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal as required as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Mela Ram & sons

SATISH NAGESH KULKARNI,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1025/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satish Nagesh Kulkarni, Vs. Dcit, Secunderabad. Circle-10(1), Pan: Begpk9791B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 29/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out, as under: “Findings and Decision 4. The facts of the case as per record are that the Assessee-Individual filed return of income

GAYATRI ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee- company is engaged in the business of development, construction and operation of power generation projects, filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2018- 2019 on 16.08.2019 declaring Rs.NIL

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

133 (Mad.) 3. Divya Jyothi Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 1176 & 29/Hyd/2016, order dated 28/03/2018. 3 I.T.A. No. 1901Hyd/17 and others Concord Drugs Ltd. 3. On the other hand, DR, contended that the delay is not condonable, for which he filed written submissions, which are extracted below: “2.1 The assessee's appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT

CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

133 (Mad.) 3. Divya Jyothi Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 1176 & 29/Hyd/2016, order dated 28/03/2018. 3 I.T.A. No. 1901Hyd/17 and others Concord Drugs Ltd. 3. On the other hand, DR, contended that the delay is not condonable, for which he filed written submissions, which are extracted below: “2.1 The assessee's appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

133 (Mad.) 3. Divya Jyothi Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 1176 & 29/Hyd/2016, order dated 28/03/2018. 3 I.T.A. No. 1901Hyd/17 and others Concord Drugs Ltd. 3. On the other hand, DR, contended that the delay is not condonable, for which he filed written submissions, which are extracted below: “2.1 The assessee's appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

133 (Mad.) 3. Divya Jyothi Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 1176 & 29/Hyd/2016, order dated 28/03/2018. 3 I.T.A. No. 1901Hyd/17 and others Concord Drugs Ltd. 3. On the other hand, DR, contended that the delay is not condonable, for which he filed written submissions, which are extracted below: “2.1 The assessee's appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT

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

section 133(6) of the Act to Vodafone Essar which in turn filed a copy of the ledger account of the assessee firm as appearing in its books of accounts for the year under consideration, which revealed that the assessee firm had during the year was in receipt of discount from its principal of Rs.14,63,581/-. Apart from that

SUJATHA KUMAR,BANASHANKARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1439/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year – 2016-2017 Mrs. Sujatha Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru – 560 085 Ward-1, Gudur-524101. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Pan Ahmpk3172C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Siddesh Nagraj Gaddi राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 97 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. “The order of the Ld.AO, insofar as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, and the weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld.AO's order is against the principle of natural