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

2 & 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that there is a delay of 125 days and went on to reject the petition for condonation of delay and clearly at Para 3.2 has held that delay is not condoned. However, the Ld.CIT(A) instead of closing the appeal at that stage, has proceeded to adjudicate on the merits

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

2 & 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that there is a delay of 125 days and went on to reject the petition for condonation of delay and clearly at Para 3.2 has held that delay is not condoned. However, the Ld.CIT(A) instead of closing the appeal at that stage, has proceeded to adjudicate on the merits

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

2.\nWe have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nfacts of the case. The tax due in the impugned case after the\norder of learned CIT(A) has been stated to be less than 1 lac\nand the seriousness has not been anticipated by the\nassessee and it was advised by the counsel that the tax\nshould be paid

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

LATE VAMANRAO RAMALINGAM ARCOT L/R BY SANGEETHA VAMANRAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.584/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Vamanrao Ramalingam Vs. Income Tax Officer Arcot L/R By Smt. Sangeetha Ward 13 (1) Vamanrao, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aclpa4148G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A A.V. Saisudha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/06/2025 आदेश/Order

delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal: Page 2 of 8 ITA No 584 of 2025 Late Vamanrao Ramalingam Arcot 5. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are regarding the validity of the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B

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

151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section 132-A after the 31st

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

151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section 132-A after the 31st

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

151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section 132-A after the 31st

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

151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section 132-A after the 31st

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

151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section 132-A after the 31st

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

151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Page 10 of 48 ITA Nos.1238 of 2019, 12 to 14 of 2020 723, 761 & 762 of 2020 Madhucon Projects Ltd section 132-A after the 31st

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

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

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 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

VINOD OJHA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2016-2017) Vinod Ojha, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad-500012. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 057. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahpo3171F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 117 days, subject to cost of Rs.2000/- [Rs. Two Thousand Only] to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. 5 ITA.No.1231/Hyd./2024 5. The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order passed by the A.O. under