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

220(2) of Act by the CPC. 13. Accordingly, the CIT(A), based on his aforesaid observations, dismissed the appeal. 14. Aggrieved, the assessee company has carried the matter in appeal before us. 15. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record. 16. Controversy involved

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.

220/- and a tax demand of ₹43,92,120/- was raised. 5 Sri Raghavendra Agro Industries 7. Aggrieved by the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal challenging the intimation issued under Section

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

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 income of Rs.1,26,44,793/-. The case

ELUMALAI SUMATHI,BAPATLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1165/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Elumalai Sumathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Bapatla Ward-1 [Pan :Abipe4083C] Ongole (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri U.Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.36,60,000 As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act After Having Admitted The Additional Evidence Filed By The Assessee Under Rule 46A. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

2. This appeal filed by the Assessee is time barred by 7 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that she could not file appeal in time due to lack of proper awareness and knowledge of ITAT proceedings and its timelines and also since she was staying almost 300 kms away from Hyderabad, it took

CHEDEDEEPU SRINIVAS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 41 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. The impugned order of the learned Assessing Officer in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 20. As the assessee firm vide its cross objection has assailed the validity of the addition of Rs. 9.45 crores (supra) made by the AO on account of the alleged unaccounted sale consideration received by the assessee firm in cash, therefore, we deem it apposite to first deal with the said

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 20. As the assessee firm vide its cross objection has assailed the validity of the addition of Rs. 9.45 crores (supra) made by the AO on account of the alleged unaccounted sale consideration received by the assessee firm in cash, therefore, we deem it apposite to first deal with the said

SREE ADITYA HOMES,RANGA REDDY DIST vs. ITO., WARD-3(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Aditya Homes, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aamcs1829G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Kiran Manohar Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2023

section 69A to the facts of the present case is supported by the following case laws. (1)Vinod Behari Jain vs. ITO: 117 ITD 220 (Del ITAT) (2)ITO vs. Naveen Kumar Agarwal: 25 SOT 253 (Del ITAT) (3) Smt. Renu Agarwal vs. ITO : 51 taxmann.com 207 (Agra ITAT).” 10. The assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), belatedly

SURESH PRODUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-13(OLD), RANGE-14(PRESENT), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

delay in filing of the C.O by the assessee is condoned and the same is admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1429/Hyd/2014 – A.Y 2003-04 (Revenue) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in film production. It filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.1

SURESH PRODUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

delay in filing of the C.O by the assessee is condoned and the same is admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1429/Hyd/2014 – A.Y 2003-04 (Revenue) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in film production. It filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.1

SURESH PRODUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

delay in filing of the C.O by the assessee is condoned and the same is admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1429/Hyd/2014 – A.Y 2003-04 (Revenue) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in film production. It filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.1

SURESH PRODUCTIONS ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

delay in filing of the C.O by the assessee is condoned and the same is admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1429/Hyd/2014 – A.Y 2003-04 (Revenue) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in film production. It filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.1

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as all the appeals and C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Appellant Respondent A.Y 1429/Hyd/2014 Acit Circle M/S. Suresh 2003-04 13(1) Hyderabad Productions Hyderabad Co 78/Hyd/2014 M/S. Suresh Acit Circle 13(1) 2003-04 (Ita Productions Hyderabad 1429/H/2014) Hyderabad 2102/Hyd/2018 -Do- Addl.Cit, Range 13(Old) 2010-11 Range-14 (Present) Hyderabad 2103/Hyd/2018 -Do- Dy.Cit, Circle 14(1) 2012-13 Hyderabad 2104/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 2105/Hyd/2018 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

delay in filing of the C.O by the assessee is condoned and the same is admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1429/Hyd/2014 – A.Y 2003-04 (Revenue) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in film production. It filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.1

MAHESH YADAV ALAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

2. Holding the assessment proceedings as valid despite the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being time-barred as per section 149 of the Act. 3. Confirming the addition of Rs. 9,65,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 4. Computing the interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income

MAHESH YADAV ALAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in\nterms of the aforesaid observations

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the\nIncome-Tax Act, 1961.”\n3. Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.A., the learned Authorized\nRepresentative (for short ‘Ld. AR') for the assessee, at the\nthreshold of hearing, submitted that the captioned appeal involves\na delay of 8 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay,\nthe Ld. AR submitted that the same had occasioned

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing