BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

149 followed]. 3.6 Thus, there exists no sufficient and good reason for an abnormal delay of around 01 years and 7 months. Such a delay cannot be condoned as condonation in the present case would not be in accordance with the exposition emanating out of the Hon’ble apex Court and Hon’ble High Court decisions. It will rather

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:

Sections 148A(b), 149, and 151, and seeks relief on these grounds. Reliance is placed on relevant case law, including the decision in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO, favoring procedural adherence. The appellant requests a condonation of delay

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals of assessee for hearing. 7. First, we will take up the appeals filed by Revenue. 7.1. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that the issues raised in all the appeals were identical. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose

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

149 of the Act, since the said notices have left the I.T.B.A. portal on or after 01.04.2021.” 10. On perusal of above, we find that after analysing the entire law relating to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal

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

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

149 of the Act, since the said notices have left the I.T.B.A. portal on or after\n01.04.2021.\"\n10.\nOn perusal of above, we find that after analysing the entire law relating\nto issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, and relying upon the\njudgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal

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

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 CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, 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

ROYAL ENGINEERING,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