AJAZ FAROOQI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay of 3 days 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. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed

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

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,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

MOHAMMAD HABEEB UDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.08/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammad Habeeb Uddin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 11-2-323-Cross Bazaar, Ward-7(1), Ghat, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500004. Pan: Aaqph8462F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

Section 115BBE of the Act without considering the legal arguments and factual evidence submitted by the Assessee. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed Ld. by AO initiating penalty u/s 271AAC and imputing interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above, it is humbly prayed that

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 133A of the Act on 04.05.2018, various documents, including sale deeds and sale agreements, were impounded, but no evidence whatsoever, substantiating the receipt of any on-money on sale of the shops was found. The assessee firm had further stated that the AO had blindly relied upon the contents of the aforesaid seized document, viz., Page 38 of Annexure

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 133A of the Act on 04.05.2018, various documents, including sale deeds and sale agreements, were impounded, but no evidence whatsoever, substantiating the receipt of any on-money on sale of the shops was found. The assessee firm had further stated that the AO had blindly relied upon the contents of the aforesaid seized document, viz., Page 38 of Annexure

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing health and mental distress. 4.4 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. In the instant case, there is reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on flagged transactions indicating substantial cash deposits, cash withdrawals, and liquor purchases during

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage

DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. M.R.V. PRASAD, HYD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s and assessee’s respective pleadings regarding the sole legal issue of validity of the re-opening herein taken recourse to by the Assessing Officer after recording reasons to believe that the latter’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

condone the delay therein involved. On further appeal, it was the claim of the assessee that as it had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by 12 ITO vs. Shiva Kumar Thota the AO under Section 153C of the Act, which was purely an issue of law, therefore, there was no justification on the part

ICONCEPT SOFTWARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,TDS,CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddya.Y. 2017-18 Iconcept Software Services Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Tds, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabci 3086 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By Sri T. Sunil Goutam, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 Order

condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company carrying on business of Software Application/Development. A survey action U/s. 133A(2A) was conducted in the assessee’s case on 27/11/2018. During the course

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

condone the delay and admit the C.O., of the assessee for hearing. 5. First, we take up the appeal of Revenue i.e. ITA 97/Hyd/2019 for adjudication. 5.1. Though the assessee has raised six grounds but out of them, ground No.1 is general in nature, ground no. 2 is with respect to addition of Rs.64,10,599/- made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA 26/Hyd/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11 : “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds urged by the assessee on correctness of additions / disallowance on merits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA 26/Hyd/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11 : “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds urged by the assessee on correctness of additions / disallowance on merits

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA 26/Hyd/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11 : “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds urged by the assessee on correctness of additions / disallowance on merits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA 26/Hyd/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11 : “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds urged by the assessee on correctness of additions / disallowance on merits

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA 26/Hyd/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11 : “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds urged by the assessee on correctness of additions / disallowance on merits