VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

201(1A) was liable to be imposed\ndid not merit acceptance.\n12.\nApropos, the assessee's claim that the AO had erred in charging interest\nunder section 220(2) on the deemed belated remittance of tax deducted at\nsource (TDS), the CIT(A) observed that as the assessee company had neither\nproved that the demand raised

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

201(1A) was liable to be imposed did not merit acceptance. 12. Apropos, the assessee’s claim that the AO had erred in charging interest under section 220(2) on the deemed belated remittance of tax deducted at source (TDS), the CIT(A) observed that as the assessee company had neither proved that the demand raised

GLOBAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 240/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Global University Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemption) Ward-1 Pan:Aaicg0020F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Suvibha Nolka राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/07/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. There Is A Delay Of 506 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Foundation. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Served With The Impugned Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By The Learned Cit (A) & Therefore, Due To The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, The Assessee

section 12 of The Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 32.We

KREATIVE HOSTS ATRIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kreative Hosts Atria Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P. Murali & Co., C,A, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aadck 2362 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad Dated 28.5.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 .

delay of 798 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 7. Facts of the case are that the assessee company is running a hotel in the name of one Continental. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.2,96,988/- towards interest to M/s. Deewan Housing

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHAVA HYTECH ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing this CO is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 8. The assessee has raised the following cross objections in its CO: “1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the respondent

VIVIN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2013-14 M/S. Vivin Laboratories Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-17(3), Hyderabad – 500 033. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacf 8021 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021 Order

201 of the Act r.w second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, erred in confirming the disallowance for the subject A.Y. and directing the A.O. to verify the payment of TDS and allow the same in the year of actual payment. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing

MOHAMMED QUADRI AHMED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 550/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mohd.Quadri Ahmed, Asst. Commissioner Hyderabad Vs. Of Income Tax, [Pan : Abfph7467L] Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

201 days. Learned AR submitted that the delay is not intentional, and the assessee does not stand to gain by preferring the appeal with any delay. He prayed that if the delay is not condoned a meritorious cause would be thrown away without testing the same on merits. 2. Learned DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. We, however

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

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

201 (Mad) PSK,J & NTR,J wp_18098_2022&batch 07.04.2010, which is clearly beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, are clearly barred by limitation and as such, cannot be sustained." Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid decisions that the issuance of notice under section 149 is complete only when

ACIT,CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S SURESH PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the ground of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 183 days in filing of the CO is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under : “1. The CIT(A) order is erroneous, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction U/s..80-IA, to the tune of Rs.13.49 lakhs

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The Ld. AR raised an additional ground in all their appeals with regards to the validity of issue of notice u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The Ld. AR submitted that, additional ground so filed are admissible in view of judgment rendered

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The Ld. AR raised an additional ground in all their appeals with regards to the validity of issue of notice u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The Ld. AR submitted that, additional ground so filed are admissible in view of judgment rendered

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

201 (Mad) PSK,J & NTR,J\nwp_18098_2022&batch 07.04.2010, which is clearly beyond the period of six years\nfrom the end of the relevant assessment year, are clearly barred by limitation and as\nsuch, cannot be sustained.\"\nThus, it is apparent from the aforesaid decisions that the issuance of notice\nunder section 149 is complete only when

OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Ltd., C/O P. Murali & Co., Ca, 6- Hyderabad 3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aaaco 4095 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13 /10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R

condone the delay of 244 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. Facts of the case are that the assessee company filed the return of income electronically on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Nil and current year loss at Rs.16,13,26,268/-. The book loss was declared u/s.115JB at Rs.6,49,83,879/-. The Assessing Officer completed

FRONTIERS INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2015-16 Frontiers Infra Projects India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcf 3873 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Sri P. Suresh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am:

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 2. The assessee has raised eight grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest

ICONCEPT SOFTWARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,TDS,CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddya.Y. 2017-18 Iconcept Software Services Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Tds, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabci 3086 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By Sri T. Sunil Goutam, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 Order

condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company carrying on business of Software Application/Development. A survey action U/s. 133A(2A) was conducted in the assessee’s case on 27/11/2018. During the course