ATIKALAGUNDU L NARAYANA REDDY AMD CO,ADONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.834/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Atikalagundu L The Income Tax Officer, Narayana Reddy & Co. Ward-1, Vs. Adoni – 518 301. Adoni – 518 301. State Of Andhra Pradesh State Of Andhra Pradesh Pan Abefa3470H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condone the delay of 257 days, subject to cost of Rs.5000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to Prime 5 ITA.No.834/Hyd./2025 Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

191 (Patna). The Hon'ble High Court, had observed that where the notice was issued by the A.O. u/s 148 requiring the assessee to file his return of income within thirty days but the said return was filed after eight and a half months, since the return was filed by assessee in response to the said notice, though delayed, there

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVAT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts from AY 2013-14 being ITA No. 380/Hyd/2020 and the decision taken in this AY shall mutatis-mutandis

LIGHT ASSOCIATES MINISTRY OF ST. BARNABA SOCIETY,KHAMMAM vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS)-3,, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Light Associates Ministry Vs. Income Tax Officer Of St. Barnaba Society (Exemptions)-3 Khammam Hyderabad Pan:Aaatl4330L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate B. Nishitha Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2010-11. 2. There Is A Delay Of 490 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid Situation. After Hearing Both The Sides, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Page 1 of 10 ITA No 305 of 2021 Light Associates Ministry of St. Baranba Society 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a charitable trust and registered u/s 12A of the I.T. Act on 30.08.2006 vide letter F. No.HQRS.I(25)/VJA/06-07. It filed its return

KALPANA ALEXANDER ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-6(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charydr.Kalpana Alexander, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, [Pan No. Achpa5433A] Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

191/- towards income from other sources. It was noticed that the assessee did not declare any income towards capital gains, after claiming deduction of Rs.37,27,774/- u/s. 54 of the Act and Rs.47,77,180/- u/s. 54EC of the Act. 3. It was picked up for scrutiny to verify the large deduction claimed

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

191 of 16 GSTR)" At page-575 "It is now a well-established principle of law that whereas eligibility criteria laid down in an exemption notification are required to be construed strictly •• once it is found that the applicant satisfies the same, :- 16 -: M/s Maheswari Mining & Energy Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. the exemption notification should be construed liberally." 11 Applyingthese principles