RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been duly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account which is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed. 12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been duly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account which is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed. 12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been duly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account which is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed. 12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

section 26955 of the Act...." cannot be considered as satisfaction for invoking penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and thus penalty order u/s 271D deserves to be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that no penalty u/s 271D of the Act is leviable as the entire additions made in the assessment order

BALAJI FINANCE,GAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned CIT A is erroneous and bad in law. b) On the facts and in the circumstances

OCIMUM BIO SOLUTIONS INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Ltd., C/O P. Murali & Co., Ca, 6- Hyderabad 3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aaaco 4095 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13 /10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R

condone the delay of 244 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. Facts of the case are that the assessee company filed the return of income electronically on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Nil and current year loss at Rs.16,13,26,268/-. The book loss was declared u/s.115JB at Rs.6,49,83,879/-. The Assessing Officer completed

CHEDEDEEPU SRINIVAS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 41 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. The impugned order of the learned Assessing Officer in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

delay in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. Ground of appeal No.1 by the revenue reads as under:- 1. “Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act without appreciating that the method adopted for determination

SREE KANYAKA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT CREDIT AND MARKETG. SOCIETY LIMITED,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HINDUPUR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.224/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Co- op Society which is carrying on the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members, which is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies

M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE 3, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Visaka Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, Secunderabad. Income Tax, Range-3, Hyderabad. Pan- Aaacv7263K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By : Smt. Mini Chandran

delay of one day is condoned. 3. Assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) ought to have allowed Rs. 49,59,201/- being the amount written off towards obsolete stock, incurred in the course of business and exclusively for the purpose of business I the year they have become obsolete

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

244 in the commentary under Section 11 of the present Act. The view remains unchanged in the 8th Edition brought out in the year 1990 (at page 349) and in the 9th Edition brought out in the year 2004 (at page 505). We are fortified in our conclusion by the view expressed by the learned authors. 27. We now come

SAI CHARAN TOWNSHIPS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sai Charan Townships, Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Plot No.111, Prashasan Income Tax, Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Central Circle – 3(3), Road No.12, Hyderabad Hyderabad. Pan : Acbfs3257J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad Invoking Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

section 40A(3) of the IT Act.” 2. The assessee has raised the additional grounds which read as under : “1. The learned Assessing Officer erroneously assumed that as per the ICDS (Income Computation and Disclosure Standard) w.e.f 01.04.2015, the assessee being a real estate developer mandatorily to follow percentage completion method, whereas, CBDT vide circular No.10/2017, dt: 23.03.2017, clarified that

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing