MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 144C(13) dated 08.01.2024 is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed and thus, we quash the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dt.08.01.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 19 ITA.Nos.833, 834, 823 & 824/Hyd./2024 11.1. Since the additional grounds raised by the assessee

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 144C(13) dated 08.01.2024 is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed and thus, we quash the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dt.08.01.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 19 ITA.Nos.833, 834, 823 & 824/Hyd./2024 11.1. Since the additional grounds raised by the assessee

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 144C(13) dated 08.01.2024 is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed and thus, we quash the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dt.08.01.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 19 ITA.Nos.833, 834, 823 & 824/Hyd./2024 11.1. Since the additional grounds raised by the assessee

PRAKASH KANYADARA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

delay attributable to the assessee and, therefore, while referring to the provisions under section 144C(2), 144C(3), 144C(4) and 92CA(3) of the Act, it was held that in the scheme of the Section 144C, the learned DRP does not enjoy the power to condone

SKYBRIDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, (TP)-2 HYDERBAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

2), 144C(3) and 144C(5) of the Act clearly shows that, in case, the assessee fails to raise any objection against the draft assessment order, then the AO was left with no other option, but to pass the assessment order as required u/s. 144C(3) of the Act. The order to be passed by the AO u/s. 144C

PRITHVI INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 26.02.2015 for the A.Y. 2010-11. ITA No.47/Hyd/2017 2 2. At the outset, it was noticed that there is a delay of 623 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit explaining the reasons

NICHINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY NICHINO CHEMICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NOW MERGED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.366/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nichino India Private Dcit / Acit Limited (Formerly Nichino Vs. Circle-5(1) Chemical India Private Hyderabad Limited, Now Merged) Hyderabad [Pan : Aaecn5394B] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ms.Suvibha Nolkha, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri D.Praveen, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/09/2024

144C(3) and 144B of the Act was passed on 09/11/2023, determining the loss at Rs.85,01,308/-. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order dated 06/12/2023 under section 143(1) of the Act with a delay, stating that considering the changes in the Income Tax portal and the assessment proceedings were already initiated

KAPA SINDHU MITRA,USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.513/Hyd./2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2016-2017 Kapa Sindhu Mitra, 20148, Holly Hock Terrace, The Income Tax Officer – Ash Burn, V A, Vs. [Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad – 500 004. United States Of America. Pan Azcpk8030D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condone the delay of 01 day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal : 3 ITA.No.513/Hyd./2024 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Assessing Officer [ITO(Int. Taxn

PRAKASH LAL POTLURI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT TAXN)-2,HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Prakash Lal Potluri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad. Pan : Gnkpp1085B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024

Section 144C(2) and (3), in case, the assessee fails to file objections to the draft assessment order, then the issue shall be decided by the DRP in accordance with the law. No power is given to the DRP to condone the delay

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 30.06.2023 as per ITA No.785/Hyd/2024 2 the direction of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore (“Ld. DRP”) dated 30.05.2023 for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 356 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which

PRAKASH LAL POTLURI,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.567/Hyd/2023 & 1284/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16)

2 1284/Hyd/2024 of the condonation petition and after hearing the learned DR, the delay of 18 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an NRI, who has not filed any Return

D. E. SHAW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 27.06.2024 for the A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 66 days in filing of the present appeal, for which the assessee has filed condonation petition explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal

RAMAGOPAL VARMA RAMARAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERENATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee arising from the assessment order passed u/sec

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /It(It)A No.507/Hyd/2025 & Ita.No.1302/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2015-2016 Ramgopal Varma The Income Tax Officer Ramaraju, Hyderabad. Vs. [Int.Taxn]-2, Hyderabad Pin – 500 060. Telangana. Pin - 500 004. Telangana. Pan Arppr7316E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: & Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condonation of delay wrongly relying on the AO's endorsement in the assessment order that no communication with regard to filing of objections before the Hon'ble DRP was intimated to the AO, which is factually not correct since the appellant-assessee filed objections in Form-35A before DRP on 26.02.2024 within due date and also intimated the AO through

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1-(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. VPR MINING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly\nallowed

condone the delay of 51\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to\nadjudicate the appeal as under.\n6.\nBriefly stated facts of the case are that, the\nassessee company is engaged in the business of mining /\nexcavation of coal, removal of over burden and execution of\n\nother related works. The company is also engaged

PRIMERA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), assessee filed this appeal. 2. At the outset, learned AR submitted that a delay of 15 days occurred in filing the appeal due to the covid complications suffered by the concerned persons and submitted that a meritorious case may not be thrown

SHAMSU UL ZOHA JERMAIN,COULSDON, UNITED KINGDOM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 243 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee and an affidavit of the counsel, explaining the reasons for the delay. It has been stated that the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. AZINGO SOFT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 1 day in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

AZINGO SOFT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 1 day in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

TRINITI ADVANCED SOFTWARELABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -2(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), assessee filed this appeal. 2. It could be seen from the record that there is a delay of 129 days in preferring this appeal and the reason attributed for the delay in filing the appeal to the pandemic