LOVEEN BABU VUPPALA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

condone the delay of 159 days before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. Having said so, let us come back to the issue involved in the appeal. Admittedly, the assessee derived income from salary and his global income from salary has been offered to tax in India. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has earned income from outside India

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

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

condoned the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal considered the grounds related to the addition made on account of sale of land and unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the land was converted to non-agricultural use and hence capital gains were applicable. The Tribunal also upheld the addition made for unexplained cash deposits

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 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

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 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

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