BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69A. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in the concluding that in the earlier years the claim of the assessee regarding “undisclosed investment in Gold & Jewellery” was accepted contrary to the fact that such claims were assessed on protective basis only. 3. The appellant prays that

M ILAIAH AND COMPANY,HANAMKONDA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

In the result, assessees appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Manda Ilaiah (Huf), Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hanamkonda. Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Pan – Aachm 9377A Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent)

221(1) of the Act, against which the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A) with a delay of 330 days. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessees filed petitions for condonation of the delay, however, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessees in-limine on the ground that the assessees were unable to prove the ‘sufficient cause

MANDA ILAIAH (HUF),HANAMKONDA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

In the result, assessees appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Manda Ilaiah (Huf), Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hanamkonda. Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Pan – Aachm 9377A Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent)

221(1) of the Act, against which the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A) with a delay of 330 days. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessees filed petitions for condonation of the delay, however, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessees in-limine on the ground that the assessees were unable to prove the ‘sufficient cause

M ILAIAH AND COMPANY,HANAMKONDA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

In the result, assessees appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Manda Ilaiah (Huf), Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hanamkonda. Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Pan – Aachm 9377A Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent)

221(1) of the Act, against which the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A) with a delay of 330 days. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessees filed petitions for condonation of the delay, however, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessees in-limine on the ground that the assessees were unable to prove the ‘sufficient cause

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion of the governing body appointed by the State Government under the 8 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987. The assessee

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion of the governing body appointed by the State Government under the 8 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987. The assessee

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion of the governing body appointed by the State Government under the 8 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987. The assessee

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion of the governing body appointed by the State Government under the 8 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987. The assessee

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVATHANAM,SECUNDERBAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion of the governing body appointed by the State Government under the 8 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987. The assessee

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion of the governing body appointed by the State Government under the 8 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987. The assessee

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

LAXMI DHARAMSOTH,MANCHYA THANDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

Bench: Us:

condonation and passed the orders. 3 Laxmi Dharamsoth vs ITO 6. Without prejudice to the above legal grounds 1-5, on the facts also the Assessing Officer erred in comparing unsecured of two different financial years. (That is comparing unsecured loans mentioned in ITR as on 31-3-2017 with the election affidavit unsecured loans

SAINATH ESTATES (P) LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the deduction u/s 80IB(10) will be increased to the extent of increase in the business profit because of the action of AO

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

221 days in filing these appeals by the assessee before us. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing these appeals, wherein it was affirmed that the company has run into financial difficulties in the last two years and presently all the assets of the company have been attached under the SARFAESI

SAINATH ESTATES (P) LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the deduction u/s 80IB(10) will be increased to the extent of increase in the business profit because of the action of AO

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

221 days in filing these appeals by the assessee before us. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing these appeals, wherein it was affirmed that the company has run into financial difficulties in the last two years and presently all the assets of the company have been attached under the SARFAESI

SAINATH ESTATES (P) LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIR-3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the deduction u/s 80IB(10) will be increased to the extent of increase in the business profit because of the action of AO

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

221 days in filing these appeals by the assessee before us. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing these appeals, wherein it was affirmed that the company has run into financial difficulties in the last two years and presently all the assets of the company have been attached under the SARFAESI

SRI KRISHNA JEWELLERY MART ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoning the delay. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact there is no exempt income earned by your appellant and hence, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.Your appellant submits that since there is no exempt income earned by your appellant, no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted. 5.Your appellant submits that in view

SRI KRISHNA JEWELLERY MART,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Appeal are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoning the delay. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact there is no exempt income earned by your appellant and hence, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.Your appellant submits that since there is no exempt income earned by your appellant, no disallowance u/s.14A is warranted. 5.Your appellant submits that in view