APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the penalty imposed is not sustainable on merits. 3. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Honourable Tribunal.” 26. Succinctly stated, the AO based

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the penalty imposed is not sustainable on merits. 3. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Honourable Tribunal.” 26. Succinctly stated, the AO based

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the penalty imposed is not sustainable on merits. 3. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Honourable Tribunal.” 26. Succinctly stated, the AO based

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the penalty imposed is not sustainable on merits. 3. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Honourable Tribunal.” 26. Succinctly stated, the AO based

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the penalty imposed is not sustainable on merits. 3. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Honourable Tribunal.” 26. Succinctly stated, the AO based

SANGEETA AKKARAJU CHANDRASEKHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit In Support Of The Condonation Petition, Wherein She Has Mentioned The Reasons For The Delay & Submitted That The Delay Occurred Due To Factors Beyond Her Control, With No Deliberate Intention To Defer The Filing Of The Appeal. On The Other Hand, The Learned Senior A.R. For The Revenue, Shri Mathivanan, S.A. Did Not Strongly Oppose The Condonation Of Delay Petition Filed By The Assessee.

condone the delay of 25 days 3 Sangeeta Akkaraju Chandrasekhar in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, in this case, information has been flagged in the Actionable Information Monitoring System. On verification, it is found that, the assessee has not filed any return of income

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoning the delay without giving any reasons. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,05,79,084/- made u/s 68 by admitting additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of IT rules. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs.98

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoning the delay without giving any reasons. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,05,79,084/- made u/s 68 by admitting additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of IT rules. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs.98

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoning the delay without giving any reasons. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,05,79,084/- made u/s 68 by admitting additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of IT rules. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses of Rs.98

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

Bench: Us:

194A. The appellant claims this was already included in the return under "Other Income". However, no documentary evidence was produced during the assessment to support this claim. The appellant neither furnished a detailed ledger nor offered reconciliation between the income shown and 26AS. In such circumstances, the AO is justified in making addition based on third-party information corroborated

CHANDINI DUVVURI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and a non-resident during the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16. As per information available on record through the Risk Management Strategy

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. PONNAMBALAM KRISHNAN, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

condone the delay on the basis of oral prayer made by the Ld DR and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 31.10.2017 declaring an income of 3 C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 Rs.18,01,470/-. The case

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

Section 194A of the Act. 4. As the assessee company had failed to comply with the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 142(1) of the Act, the A.O. was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O., in the absence 4 Pinki Fresh Foods Limited

ANDHRA CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

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

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 03 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 the delay

VENKATA SUDHAKAR SIMHADRI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.382/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Venkata Sudhakar Dcit, Circle 2(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Simhadri, Hyderabad. Pan : Avnps0649D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 19/06/2024

delay of 56 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, upholding the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B