GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case for that, the assessee company viz., “Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad” engaged in the business of construction and building of infrastructure projects/facilities, filed it's return of income for the assessment year

NCL HOMES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 3. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal with a delay of 337 days. It could be seen from the record that there is a delay of 351 days in preferring these appeals and the reason attributed for the delay in filing the appeals to the pandemic

GACM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Gacm Technologies Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Hyderabad (Formerly Known As Stampede Capital Limited) Hyderabad Pan : Aaacb7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.Dr 05.09.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2024

section 5 of The Limitation Act. The application seeking condonation of delay in presenting the appeal is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits.” 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer has passed the order on 27.12.2019 and in the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not uploaded

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay, the fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 has held that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15 March, 2020 till 02 October, 2021 shall be excluded

SBPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The ld. CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the addition without appreciation of facts and law. 2. The NFAC erred in upholding the order passed by the AO even though the AO rejected the claim

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HBL POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 14A of the Act. Page 2 of 8 5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, did not consider the request of the assessee to allow the claim of warranty expenditure of Rs. 662.21 Lakhs, on the ground that it was a new claim not to be found in return of income and also that no reason was assigned for change

ANDHRA CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 03 days. It has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoning the delay without giving any reasons. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,05,79,084/- made u/s 68 by admitting additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of IT rules. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs.98

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoning the delay without giving any reasons. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,05,79,084/- made u/s 68 by admitting additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of IT rules. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs.98

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoning the delay without giving any reasons. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,05,79,084/- made u/s 68 by admitting additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of IT rules. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs.98

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

delay in filing this appeal 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company is in the business of investments and it filed its return of income

MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

delay in filing this appeal 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company is in the business of investments and it filed its return of income

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022