SRI RAGHVENDRA AGRO INDUSTRIES,MANTRALAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, ADONI

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

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Sworn By Shri Archaka Vyasarajachar, Partner Of The Assessee Firm, Explaining The Facts Relating To Filing Of The Appeal. As Per The Affidavit, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Served On The Assessee On 25.09.2024 & The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 24.11.2024. The Assessee Submitted That, Form No. 36, As Per The Prescribed Procedure, Was Filed Electronically On 20.11.2024, Which Is Within The Period Of Limitation.

210/-. The return was accompanied by audit report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD, as the accounts of the assessee were audited under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The return of income was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, and an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 30.05.2024 was issued. While processing

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

210/- while making adjustments to the return of the assessee, namely, disallowance under section 37 of the Act at Rs. 7,37,487/-, Rs. 6,80,389/-, Rs. 69,00,285/-, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs. 24,000/-, disallowance under section

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

210/- while making adjustments to the return of the assessee, namely, disallowance under section 37 of the Act at Rs. 7,37,487/-, Rs. 6,80,389/-, Rs. 69,00,285/-, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs. 24,000/-, disallowance under section

RENUKA SILVER MERCHENTS,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of silver and jewellery trading. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017– 18 on 31.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.1,75,210

MAHUA BHARATPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MADHUCON AGRA- JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED),),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

210 ITR 830) ii) Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT vs. Godavari Plywoods (168 ITR 632) iii) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Diamond Dies Mfg. Corp (40 Taxman 34) iv) ITAT Kolkata in the case of Gloster Ltd v CIT in ITA No.828/Kol/2020 5. We have considered the rival submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON AGRA JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

210 ITR 830) ii) Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT vs. Godavari Plywoods (168 ITR 632) iii) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Diamond Dies Mfg. Corp (40 Taxman 34) iv) ITAT Kolkata in the case of Gloster Ltd v CIT in ITA No.828/Kol/2020 5. We have considered the rival submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON AGRA JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

210 ITR 830) ii) Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CIT vs. Godavari Plywoods (168 ITR 632) iii) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Diamond Dies Mfg. Corp (40 Taxman 34) iv) ITAT Kolkata in the case of Gloster Ltd v CIT in ITA No.828/Kol/2020 5. We have considered the rival submission

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

210\n24Q\n3\n19.04.2022\n154\n21.04.2022 44,000\n3,080\n24Q\n4\n18.04.2022\n154\n19.04.2022 32,600\n1,304\n26Q\n2\n03.01.2023\n154\n03.01.2023 11,000 3,975 2,551\n26Q\n3\n18.04.2022 154\n19.04.2022 44,000 7,340 3,080\n27EQ\n1\n30.06.2022 154\n30.06.2022 566\n35\n27EQ\n2\n15.11.2021\n200A/206CB 20.11.2021 573.75\n27EQ\n3\n15.11.2021\n200A/206CB

SRESTA NATURAL BIOPRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-2018 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 3(2), Pan – Aahcs 9571J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/03/2022

210 3.3 Accordingly, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31/03/2021 incorporating the TPO’s order. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the DRP and the DRP dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the objections filed before them are not maintainable by observing as under: “As per section 144C(2) of the Income

T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(3, HYDERABAD vs. MYTRAH WIND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Mytrah Wind Developers Private Limited, Ward – 16(3), Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaicm1274H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 210 days. It has moved a condonation application explaining the reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone

PALABATHUNI CHANDRA RAVI,RAMASAMUDRAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, MADANAPALLE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2017-18 Shri Palabathuni Chandra Vs. Income Tax Officer Ravi, Ramasamudram Ward-1 Pan:Atepr8548M Madanapalle (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.6.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of The Act & Confirmed By The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Ground Of Appeal.

delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income electronically on 21.1.2018 declaring total income at Rs.6,21,210/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

JAYA DIAGNOSTIC & RESEARCH CENTRE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Jaya Diagnostic & Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Circle 2(2) Research Centre Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacj5137J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th October, 2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 7 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. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed Along With The Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay & After Hearing The Learned Dr, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. Page 1 Of 13

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Page 1 of 13 ITA No 153 of 2018 Jaya Diagnostic 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of diagnostic and medical services, filed its return of income declaring total income

HEMAKUMAR REDDY POUTTIAKULA ,CHITTOOR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Shri Rama Kanta Panda

delay in filing of both the appeals by one day is condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Both these appeals were earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for want of prosecution. However, the Tribunal subsequently vide order dated 10.06.2022 in M.A.77 to 79/Hyd/2022 recalled its earlier orders. Hence, these are recalled matters. 4. First we take

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action holding the impugned assessment as void ab initio as follows: “VIII) During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR submitted following submissions:- "SUBMISSIONS: On the above grounds of appeal

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

MANNE HAREESH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Shri Manne Hareesh, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad-500 0016 Ward 6(2), Pan Admpm6479L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T.Rama Murthy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R) Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2021 O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Hyderabad Order Dt.10.10.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “ 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals Erred Both On Facts & Provisions Of Law In Appreciating The Fact That Assessing Officer Failed Make Proper Conclusion/ Enquiry Before Making The Addition Made & Passing The Assessment Order.

delay of 303 days 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. 3. The Ground Nos.1, 2 & 6 are general in nature and does not require any adjudication thereon. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee