ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMR INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. 13 ITA.Nos.534 & 535/Hyd./2024 & C.O.Nos.4 & 5/Hyd./2025 The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs." 6.3.1. Applying the judgment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON AGRA JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

section 43 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is the cash support in the nature of shareholders fund to make the project viable and to provide financial strength to the assessee to avail further financial support from the financial institutions in the shape of loan. The learned CIT (A) has considered this issue in para 5.3 to 5.3.2 as under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON AGRA JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

section 43 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is the cash support in the nature of shareholders fund to make the project viable and to provide financial strength to the assessee to avail further financial support from the financial institutions in the shape of loan. The learned CIT (A) has considered this issue in para 5.3 to 5.3.2 as under

MAHUA BHARATPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MADHUCON AGRA- JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED),),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

section 43 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is the cash support in the nature of shareholders fund to make the project viable and to provide financial strength to the assessee to avail further financial support from the financial institutions in the shape of loan. The learned CIT (A) has considered this issue in para 5.3 to 5.3.2 as under

DEEPTI SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,HINDUPUR vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI,

Bench: Us:

condoning the delay differs in facts and is not applicable to the case of the appellant. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) himself has accepted that an appeal having merits should not be thrown away merely because there is some delay in filing the appeal, however he has contradicted himself by rejecting the appeal on delay in filing without considering

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

245/-, but had not filed his return of income for the subject year, issued notice under section 148 of the Act. 3. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 19/02/2024 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,53,21,425/- after making certain additions, viz., (i) addition

ATGC BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). Heard both sides. Case files perused. 2. The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 7 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay. We heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

FRONTIERS INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2015-16 Frontiers Infra Projects India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcf 3873 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Sri P. Suresh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am:

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 2. The assessee has raised eight grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest