ANANTHA PVC PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.317/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1, Kurnool. Anantapur. Pan:Aagca0936J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. & Shri P. Rosi Reddy, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The

delay of 147 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.317/Hyd/2025 5 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of PVC pipes. It filed its return of income

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs. BADRI MANJULA , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TURAIRAO , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay ITA No.232/Hyd/2020 2 of 29 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under : “ 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred is erroneous both on fact and law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the short term capital gains of Rs.2

POOJA CRAFTED HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 61/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pooja Crafted Homes (P) Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadcp2869A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S K Gupta, राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2024 आदेश/Order

delay in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company is engaged in the construction of commercial and residential apartments and development of open plots. The assessee company filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.10.2018 admitting total

NEELA REDDY MORAMREDDY GARU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5) , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Neela Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Moramreddy Garu, Ward 14(5) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Afapm7614R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy.Cit, Vs. Smt.Neela Reddy Circle 8(1) Moramreddy Garu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Afapm7614R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/10/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M

delay in filing of the appeal by the Revenue is condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of shares. She filed her return of income electronically for the A.Y 2014-15 on 28.9.2014 declaring

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NEELA REDDY MORAMREDDYGARU, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Neela Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Moramreddy Garu, Ward 14(5) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Afapm7614R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy.Cit, Vs. Smt.Neela Reddy Circle 8(1) Moramreddy Garu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Afapm7614R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/10/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M

delay in filing of the appeal by the Revenue is condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of shares. She filed her return of income electronically for the A.Y 2014-15 on 28.9.2014 declaring

NULAND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFIERS ,WARD -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nuland Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Ward 16(2) Pan:Aaccn5235D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8.5.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2011-12. 2. There Is A Delay Of 545 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid. After Hearing Both The Sides & Following The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Write Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020 Order Dated 10.01.2022 Wherein It Is Held That The Period From 15.3.2020 Till

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of undertaking infrastructure activities. It filed its return of income on 21.7.2011 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution

KOTHAKOTA KRISHNAMOORTHY REDDY ,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, CHITTOOR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Kothakota Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishnamoorthy Reddy, Ward 2, Chittoor. Palamaner, Chittor District, A.P. Pan Bwapk 3714Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2 ITA 375/Hyd/2020 2. I notice at the outset that assessee's instant appeal suffers from 87 days delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents from the department which caused the impugned delay in filing