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

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

THILAK BABU BOPPANA,CHITTOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)

section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 28/02/2025 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 59,61,432/- after making certain additions, viz., (i) income on total sales reported as per GSTR-3B of Rs.2,41,31,236/- @ 12%: Rs.28,95,748/-; (ii) rental income (after giving deduction @ 30% of rental receipts of Rs.40

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

236 ITR 34 (SC)) and ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [(2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)]. Further, the approval under section 151 was duly obtained and the reasons for reopening were recorded, as confirmed in the assessment order. The reassessment was within the prescribed time and squarely falls within the framework of section 147, Therefore, the action

A.P. POWER GENERATION CORPN. LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a State PSU engaged in power generation, filed its return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Nil under the normal provisions and Rs.484,74,65,032/- u/s 115JB

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a State PSU engaged in power generation, filed its return of income on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Nil under the normal provisions and Rs.484,74,65,032/- u/s 115JB

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

236/- while giving effect to this order”. 13. Thus, when the Assessing Officer has not made any addition while passing the assessment order u/s 153A but only disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA, then the addition as directed by the learned CIT (A) would certainly amount to enhancement of the assessment. There is no quarrel on the point that the learned

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

236/- while giving effect to this order”. 13. Thus, when the Assessing Officer has not made any addition while passing the assessment order u/s 153A but only disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA, then the addition as directed by the learned CIT (A) would certainly amount to enhancement of the assessment. There is no quarrel on the point that the learned

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

236/- while giving effect to this order”. 13. Thus, when the Assessing Officer has not made any addition while passing the assessment order u/s 153A but only disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA, then the addition as directed by the learned CIT (A) would certainly amount to enhancement of the assessment. There is no quarrel on the point that the learned

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

236/- while giving effect to this order”. 13. Thus, when the Assessing Officer has not made any addition while passing the assessment order u/s 153A but only disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA, then the addition as directed by the learned CIT (A) would certainly amount to enhancement of the assessment. There is no quarrel on the point that the learned

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

236/- while giving effect to this order”. 13. Thus, when the Assessing Officer has not made any addition while passing the assessment order u/s 153A but only disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA, then the addition as directed by the learned CIT (A) would certainly amount to enhancement of the assessment. There is no quarrel on the point that the learned

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

236/- while giving effect to this order”. 13. Thus, when the Assessing Officer has not made any addition while passing the assessment order u/s 153A but only disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA, then the addition as directed by the learned CIT (A) would certainly amount to enhancement of the assessment. There is no quarrel on the point that the learned

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay 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. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay 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. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.682/Hyd/2024 read as under : “1. Both on the fact and in the circumstance of the case, the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 11,56,60,835/- made u/s 80IA(13). 2. Whether

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

condone the delay and admit all the appeals\nfor hearing.\n3.\nThe grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA\nNo.682/Hyd/2024 read as under :\n\"1. Both on the fact and in the circumstance of the case, the\nld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting disallowance of Rs.\n11,56,60,835/- made u/s 80IA(13).\n2. Whether

SHARE MICROFIN LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Page 1 of 18 ITA 430 of 2020 Share Microfin Ltd 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged into providing financial services via micro financing. It filed its return of income on 27.09.2016 which

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,PEDDA HARIVANAM vs. ITO WARD-1, ADONI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

236 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We note at the outset that these three appeals suffer from 315, 322 and 318 days delay stated to be attributable to Page 1 of 4 ITA Nos 246 to 248 of 2021 Andhra Pragathi Farmers Service Coop Society Yerraguntla communication

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,YERRAGUNTLA vs. ITO WARD-2, NANDYAL

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

236 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We note at the outset that these three appeals suffer from 315, 322 and 318 days delay stated to be attributable to Page 1 of 4 ITA Nos 246 to 248 of 2021 Andhra Pragathi Farmers Service Coop Society Yerraguntla communication