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

227 with respect to condonation of delay and on merits however, the facts of those cases are not identical with the facts of the assessee’s case before us and therefore those decisions cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. The decisions relied by the Ld. DR are as follows: Mela Ram & Sons (29 ITR 607); Commissioner Nagar

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

delay, does not come under\n\"sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge\ndelay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal\nfiled by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the\nappeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un-\nadmitted.\n\n11.\nIn the result

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

227/- under section 69A of the IT\nAct read with section 115BBE of the IT Act, as discussed above in\ndetail.\"\n19.1.\nThus, it is clear that the assessee could not explain\nand reconcile these transactions during the assessment\nproceedings resulting in the addition made by the Assessing\nOfficer. Even before us, the assessee has not furnished any\ndetails

GANGA VINAY BABU,HYDERABAD vs. SIBENDU MOHARANA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 Ganga Vinay Babu, C/O. Ch. Vs. Ito, International Taxation, Parthasarathy & Co., 1-1- Nellore. 298/2/B/3, 1St Floor, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Ayxpg 9593 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Balakrishna, (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12/10/ 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 (It& Tp), Hyderabad Dated 26Th February, 2020 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 263 of the Act when an appeal proceedings are pending before first appellate authority.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by 291 days. The assessee has filed condonation application dated 5.8.2021, stating that the order u/s.263 of the Act was received by the assessee on 5.3.2020, thus, the time limit for filing appeal before the Appellate

ITO, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARKA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

delay of one day in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 4. The learned DR has submitted that the assessee sold the agricultural land situated at Village Kapashera, Delhi for a consideration of Rs.61.25 crores but, did not offer the capital gain Page

NNF - STATE CHAPTER,HYDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing)

condone the delay of 11 days in the filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 5. The assessee has raised seven grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that the Ld. CIT (E), Hyderabad has erred in rejecting the application in Form No. 10 A & Form

NNF - STATE CHAPTER,HYDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing)

condone the delay of 11 days in the filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 5. The assessee has raised seven grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are that the Ld. CIT (E), Hyderabad has erred in rejecting the application in Form No. 10 A & Form

NADIMINTY GANAPATHY SASTRY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nadiminty Ganapathy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Sastry, Circle 14(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalpg5424F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Smt.T.H. Vijayalakshmi,Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of 50 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Delay Along With An Affidavit. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing The Learned Dr, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Page 1 of 8 ITA 303 of 2021 N Ganapathy Sastry 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned PCIT u/s 263 setting aside the assessment order passed

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Hinduja National Power Income Tax, Corporation Limited, Circle – 2 (1), Sanathinagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Pan : Aabch2426D

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.11.2014 electronically u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 declaring total income of Rs.5,00,16,690/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny

MADHUSUDHAN REDDY AITHA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Aitha, Ward – 2, 13-65, Main Road, Karimnagar. Garepalli, Kataram, Hyderabad – 505503. Telangana. Pan : Agmpa9695H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from Business as commission from trading of Jaggery. The assessee has prepared the Profit and Loss account and arrived at a profit of Rs.2,95,643/- for A.Y. 2015-16 and the same was admitted

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 115P of the Act amounting to INR 16,88,87,040. Consequential: 28. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest and penalty and the said levy of interest and penalty being wholly unjustified, ought to be deleted.” :- 10 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 115P of the Act amounting to INR 16,88,87,040. Consequential: 28. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest and penalty and the said levy of interest and penalty being wholly unjustified, ought to be deleted.” :- 10 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity