DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

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

221 Taxmann.com 143), Dr. D.S.S. Rao vs. ITO reported in 356 ITR 117, Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT reported in 330 ITR 1: In these cases none of the creditors were traceable and in some instances cash deposits were found in their accounts. (vi) Dhingra Global Credence Pvt Ltd vs. ITO reported in 1 ITR(T) 529:- In this case

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

condone the delay. In view of this difficulty, we are unable to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the assessee. We have also gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the assessee. That was a case where the assessee was denied the benefit of Section

GEETHIKA ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

sections": [ "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "69C", "221(1)", "44AB" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficient cause for condonation

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

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

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

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

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

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

PADMAVATHI REDDY GADDAM ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

delay is condoned therefore. 3. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The order of the learned First Appellate Authority is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2.The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the property in dispute owned by the State Government

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. IND BARATH POWER GENCOM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godaraappellant Respondent

delay stands condoned therefore. :- 2 -: ITA Nos.921, 922 & 923/Hyd/2019 3. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in first and foremost AY.2014-15; appeal in ITA No.921/Hyd/2019 and former identical grievance canvassed in the latter twin assessment years’ appeals herein challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section 36(1)(iii) involving varying sums. We note that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. IND BARATH POWER INFRA LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godaraappellant Respondent

delay stands condoned therefore. :- 2 -: ITA Nos.921, 922 & 923/Hyd/2019 3. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in first and foremost AY.2014-15; appeal in ITA No.921/Hyd/2019 and former identical grievance canvassed in the latter twin assessment years’ appeals herein challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section 36(1)(iii) involving varying sums. We note that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. IND BARATH POWER GENCOM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godaraappellant Respondent

delay stands condoned therefore. :- 2 -: ITA Nos.921, 922 & 923/Hyd/2019 3. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in first and foremost AY.2014-15; appeal in ITA No.921/Hyd/2019 and former identical grievance canvassed in the latter twin assessment years’ appeals herein challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section 36(1)(iii) involving varying sums. We note that