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

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

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

SRK INFRACON (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(3), HYDERABADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 14A, therefore, set aside the assessment to redo. The order of the CIT appears to have been sent by email to the assessee. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee's activity seized to exist after April 2018 and the administrative staff is reduced to minimum as there are no day to day management of the company

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INTEGRATED CLEANROOM TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Integrated Cleanroom Tax, Circle 2(1) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aabci0328R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Kiran Katta, Dr Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Date Of Hearing: 16/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021

delay is condoned and we proceed with the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30th October, 2017 admitting loss of Rs.40,89,46,720/-. Later on assessee revised the return on 27th September,2018 admitting total income of Rs. 40,75,75,260/-; and the case was selected for complete

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TELANGANA STATE POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Telangana State Power Income-Tax, Generation Corporation Circle – 2(2), Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aafct 0257Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Danda Srinivas Assessee By: Shri Chandramouleswara Rao Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2021

section 14A. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. We notice at the outset that revenue’s instant appeal suffers from 90 days delay in filing. To this effect, the ld. DR filed an affidavit wherein it was affirmed that due to COVIP pandemic and consequent lockdown declared by the Govt. of India

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

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

2. At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the assessee filed this appeal with a delay of 185 days. In this connection, assessee submitted a petition for condonation of delay stating 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SMR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

condone the delay of 93 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 2. The Revenue has raised three identical grounds in its two appeals however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred by restricting the disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act to the extent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SMR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

condone the delay of 93 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 2. The Revenue has raised three identical grounds in its two appeals however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred by restricting the disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act to the extent

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. SUJANA UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

2 -: petition/affidavit. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore. 3. The Revenue has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that provisions of section 14A