SRI AJEYA SANKARA TRUST,TIRUPATI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1366/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Ajeya Sankara Trust Vs. Cit (Exemption) Tirupati Hyderabad Pan:Aaxts2264F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H. Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 17/05/2025 Of Cit (Exemption) Whereby The Application Of The Assessee In Form 10Ab Seeking Regular Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Was Rejected On The Ground Of Barred By Limitation.

condonation of the delay, if there is a reasonable cause for filing the application. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the amendment of inserting the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) and the cause of delay in filing the application has been explained by the assessee, the same may be treated as filed

DEEPTI SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,HINDUPUR vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI,

Bench: Us:

condoning the delay differs in facts and is not applicable to the case of the appellant. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) himself has accepted that an appeal having merits should not be thrown away merely because there is some delay in filing the appeal, however he has contradicted himself by rejecting the appeal on delay in filing without considering

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

GADDAM VEENA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

condone this identical delay of 159 days and proceed to deal upon the merits of the issue(s). 3. Learned authorised representative next invited our attention to the assessees’ identical pleadings challenging 153A proceedings as well as correctness of Section

GADDAM VEENA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

condone this identical delay of 159 days and proceed to deal upon the merits of the issue(s). 3. Learned authorised representative next invited our attention to the assessees’ identical pleadings challenging 153A proceedings as well as correctness of Section

GADDAM VENKATA NARAYANA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

condone this identical delay of 159 days and proceed to deal upon the merits of the issue(s). 3. Learned authorised representative next invited our attention to the assessees’ identical pleadings challenging 153A proceedings as well as correctness of Section

GADDAM VEENA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

condone this identical delay of 159 days and proceed to deal upon the merits of the issue(s). 3. Learned authorised representative next invited our attention to the assessees’ identical pleadings challenging 153A proceedings as well as correctness of Section

GADDAM VENKATA NARAYANA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

condone this identical delay of 159 days and proceed to deal upon the merits of the issue(s). 3. Learned authorised representative next invited our attention to the assessees’ identical pleadings challenging 153A proceedings as well as correctness of Section

GADDAM VEENA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

condone this identical delay of 159 days and proceed to deal upon the merits of the issue(s). 3. Learned authorised representative next invited our attention to the assessees’ identical pleadings challenging 153A proceedings as well as correctness of Section

GADDAM VEENA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

condone this identical delay of 159 days and proceed to deal upon the merits of the issue(s). 3. Learned authorised representative next invited our attention to the assessees’ identical pleadings challenging 153A proceedings as well as correctness of Section

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 20. As the assessee firm vide its cross objection has assailed the validity of the addition of Rs. 9.45 crores (supra) made by the AO on account of the alleged unaccounted sale consideration received by the assessee firm in cash, therefore, we deem it apposite to first deal with the said

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 20. As the assessee firm vide its cross objection has assailed the validity of the addition of Rs. 9.45 crores (supra) made by the AO on account of the alleged unaccounted sale consideration received by the assessee firm in cash, therefore, we deem it apposite to first deal with the said

RAVULA SRINIVASA RAO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NELLORE

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

delay pertains to Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period only which stands condoned. These three main appeals are taken up for adjudication as on merits therefore. We make it clear that the appellants father herein had expired on 30.07.2010. 3. A combined perusal of all the three instant case files reveals that these assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance seeks to reverse

RAVULA NARAYANA RAO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NELLORE

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

delay pertains to Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period only which stands condoned. These three main appeals are taken up for adjudication as on merits therefore. We make it clear that the appellants father herein had expired on 30.07.2010. 3. A combined perusal of all the three instant case files reveals that these assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance seeks to reverse

RAVULA SUDHAKAR GOWD ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NELLORE

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

delay pertains to Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period only which stands condoned. These three main appeals are taken up for adjudication as on merits therefore. We make it clear that the appellants father herein had expired on 30.07.2010. 3. A combined perusal of all the three instant case files reveals that these assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance seeks to reverse

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SYNERGIES CASTINGS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 39 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. There was no appearance on behalf of the assessee before the bench. Therefore after hearing the Ld. DR, we proceeds to decide the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Company engaged