GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

condonation\nof delay, so that substantial justice is not defeated on technical\ngrounds. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka\nHigh Court in CIT & Anr. Vs. ISRO Satellite Centre [2013] 263\nCTR (Kar) 549 and by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in Srimaan\nIndustries Private Limited Vs. ITO [2022] 217 TTJ (Hyd) 120.\nRespectfully following the aforesaid

SRI VENKATESWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,JAMALAPURAM vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

160 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as carefully perused the contents of the application

SRI VENAKTESWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,,JAMALAPURAM vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD1- (3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

160 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as carefully perused the contents of the application

PRITHVI INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay of 623 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “ 1. Erred in making the addition of Rs. 24,88,54,488/- as adjustment towards arms length price in respect of the international truncations entered into with associated enterprises. 2. Erred

RR MARKETING,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present\nappeal.\nWe have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both\nparties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material\navailable on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements\nthat have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his\ncontentions.\nShri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KHAMMAM vs. BHARAT AUTO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, KHAMMAM

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

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

section 144 r.w.s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 40 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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SRI SRI GRUHANIRMAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 94/Hyd/2019 and 532/Hyd/2020 are allowed in part and for statistical purpose and ITA No

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

160/- comprising of business income. Learned Assessing Officer, by way of order dated 30/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,64,52,460/- after making certain additions, more particularly under section 40A(3) of the Act read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and towards suppressed

SRI SRI GRUHANIRMAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 94/Hyd/2019 and 532/Hyd/2020 are allowed in part and for statistical purpose and ITA No

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

160/- comprising of business income. Learned Assessing Officer, by way of order dated 30/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,64,52,460/- after making certain additions, more particularly under section 40A(3) of the Act read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and towards suppressed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI SRI GRUHANIRMAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 94/Hyd/2019 and 532/Hyd/2020 are allowed in part and for statistical purpose and ITA No

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

160/- comprising of business income. Learned Assessing Officer, by way of order dated 30/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,64,52,460/- after making certain additions, more particularly under section 40A(3) of the Act read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and towards suppressed

SRI SRI GRUHANIRMAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 94/Hyd/2019 and 532/Hyd/2020 are allowed in part and for statistical purpose and ITA No

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

160/- comprising of business income. Learned Assessing Officer, by way of order dated 30/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,64,52,460/- after making certain additions, more particularly under section 40A(3) of the Act read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and towards suppressed

ATGC BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). Heard both sides. Case files perused. 2. The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 7 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay. We heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given

SHANKARAIAH TELAKAPALLY,NALGONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, NALGONDA

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shankaraiah Telakapalli, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4-10-520/Cs/1, Sainagar Ward – 1, Colony, Ward-24, Nalgonda. Nalgonda, Telangana - 508001. Pan : Alipt1315Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Phanindra, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/01/2024

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) erroneous and unsustainable in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer wherein

SRIMANTHI KANTHIMATHI KUMARASWAMI MUDALIAR KALYANAMANDAPAM TRUST,CHITTOOR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President\nAND\nShri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member\n\nआ.अपी.सं / ITA No.690/Hyd/2025\n(निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2025-26)\n\n| Srimanthi Kanthimathi\nKumaraswamy Mudaliar\nKalyanamandapam Trust,\nChittoor\nPAN:ABDTS060C\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nCIT (Exemptions)\nHyderabad\n(Respondent)\n\nनिर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee by:\nराजस्व द्वारा / Revenue by::\nShri A Mahesh, CA\nShri Narender Kumar Naik,\nCIT(DR)\n\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: | 09/07/2025\nघोषणा की

160 (Kol) &\nAnudip foundation for social welfare vs CIT(E) 206 ITD 115 (Kol)\n\n10. In any view of the matter, the 'rejection' order is against the principles of Natural\nJustice and ought to be set aside, as the learned CIT(E) did not communicate\nthe proposal for rejecting the order nor allowed an opportunity to the trust before

PARVEEN BANU HEBBAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Parveen Banu Hebbal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 8-2-603/13/3/N/1/A, Ward – 8(1), 1St Floor, Singara Colony, Hyderabad. Banjara Hills, Road No.10, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Abxph4274M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar Sukhla, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.08.2024

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 166 days. She has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having considered the reasons provided in the petition, I condone the delay and admit

VENKATA RAMANA PURAM,PILER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Venkata Ramana Puram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), 2-1752, Lbs Road Piler, Tirupati. Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh – 517248. Pan : Ajnpp6019N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Sri Aravindakshan, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:

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 53 days. The assessee has moved a condonation petition 2 explaining reasons thereof. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I condone

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs. PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED , KADAPA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Pritham & Prathik Ward – 1, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kadapa. Kadapa – 516002. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.10/Hyd/2019 (In Ita 97/Hyd/2019) M/S. Pritham & Prathik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Ward – 1, Kadapa – 516002. Kadapa. Pan : Aahcp6013E. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2022 Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

160 ITR 674. (vi) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the additions made u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act, on the ground that the company was not carrying on any business activity daring the year under consideration and no source of income exists