NAGARJUNA ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee-company is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 143(1) of the Act, it was Covid period and due to on- going Covid pandemic, the assessee-company could not file appeal on or before the due date provided under the Act. No doubt, the assessee-company could not file petition for condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A), but, fact remains that, the delay in filing

DIVYA JYOTHI STEELS LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us on the ground that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for this AY on 21/09/2009 declaring an income of Rs. 71,68,230

DIVYA JYOTHI STEELS LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us on the ground that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for this AY on 21/09/2009 declaring an income of Rs. 71,68,230

MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

condone the delay of 158 days in filing the present appeal, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order passed

D. E. SHAW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

delay of 66 days in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 6. ITA No.1154/Hyd/2024 4 ITA No.1154/Hyd/2024 5 7. The facts of the case are that, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing Software Development Services

DATAFORMIX ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dataformix Enterprise V Ito,Ward-17(1) Solutions Private Limited S. Signature Towers 1-33-47, Rtc Colony, Kondapur Gunrock, Tirumalgiri Hyderabad-500 004 Secunderabad-500 0074

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. 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee had drawn our attention to the written submission filed by the assessee in support of the case on merit, it was submitted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NIKHIL REFINERIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Nikhil Refineries Income Tax, Pvt. Limited. Circle – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcn5930G. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.12/Hyd/2022 In Assessment Year – 2011-12 M/S. Nikhil Refineries Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcn5930G. (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Krishna. Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2022

230/- and book profits u/s 115JB at Rs.2,93,98,327/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs.2,40,65,456/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served. Later, notice

THE INDUR INTIDEEPAM PRODUCERS MA CO-OP SOCIETIES FEDERATION LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

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

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

delay in filing this appeal 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 grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned

VAZHRAA NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. I.T.O. CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and take up the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that, the only issue in this appeal is disallowance of interest paid on various taxes which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, he submitted that, they are on appeal against addition of Rs.66,710/- on account of interest paid on delayed payment

RAMESH SISTLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. appeal: The assessee has raised the following grounds of “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s.250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order was passed during the Covid Pandemic period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking suo motto cognizance for extension of limitation in writ petition in Miscellaneous Appeal No.21/2022 extending the period of limitation up to 28/02/2022

LANCO AMARKANTAK POWER LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

230 days. It has moved a condonation explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. At the outset, it is represented by both the sides that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) are pending against

STRUZZO CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -3(4), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in foregoing terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Struzzo Capital Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Services Private Limited, Ward 3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aajcs4657F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Majumdar. Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 19.03.2020 In Case No.10369/2018-19/A3 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from delay of 610 days in filing. It further emerges that ld.CIT(A) has passed his impugned lower appellate order on 19.03.2020 only. And that