THE ICFAI SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 The Icfai Society, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. (Exemptions), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaajt0214B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Revenue By: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2024 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

delay of 10 days for the following reasons : “5.1. In the present case, claims u/s 10(23C)(vi) and 11 of the Act were denied by the AO after elaborate discussion encompassing various nuances of facts and law. Quite apparently. There was no mistake apparent from records. 5.2. It is to be kept in mind that the appellant society offers

VIBBY GOTTEMUKKALA,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 710/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vibby Gottemukkala, Vs. Adit (Int. Taxn)-1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. [Pan : Aejpg9151K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

248 (Cochin – Trib). 4. Per contra, learned Departmental Representa"ve (“learned DR”) submi"ed that as rightly observed by the learned DRP, there is no provision in the Act for the learned DRP to condone the delay, and therefore, the learned DRP has nothing to do than rejec"ng the objec"ons. 5. We have gone through the record

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarvotham Care, having income from two units, one being a solar power generation unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHAVA HYTECH ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

248 days delay in filing before the ITAT. In this connection, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, wherein, it was affirmed that due to incurring huge losses and due to suspension of work by the Government, the company closed down its business activities with effect from FY 2013-14, caused the impugned

JMJ MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THIRFT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT & MARKETING,,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, MAHABUBNAGAR, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, , both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

248 & 251/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 JMJ Mahila Mutually Vs. Income Tax Officer Aided Coop. Thrift Dev. Ward 2 Credit & Marketing Mahaboobnagar Mahaboobnagar PAN:AACAJ0879P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri E.S. Ranganath, CA Revenue by: Sri Y Sesha Srinivas,DR Date of hearing: 14/07/2022 Date of pronouncement: 15/07/2022 ORDER The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

JMJ MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THIRFT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT & MARKETING ,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -2, MAHABUBNAGAR

In the result, , both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

248 & 251/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 JMJ Mahila Mutually Vs. Income Tax Officer Aided Coop. Thrift Dev. Ward 2 Credit & Marketing Mahaboobnagar Mahaboobnagar PAN:AACAJ0879P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri E.S. Ranganath, CA Revenue by: Sri Y Sesha Srinivas,DR Date of hearing: 14/07/2022 Date of pronouncement: 15/07/2022 ORDER The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

248 days. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal, which declined to condone the delay therein involved. On further appeal, it was the claim of the assessee that as it had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by 12 ITO vs. Shiva Kumar Thota the AO under Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD vs. AMERICAN INFOSERV PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

248 days; respectively stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond its control as per condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s). No rebuttal has come from either side to this effect. The impugned delays in all the above appeals are condoned therefore. 3. We next find both the assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.858/Hyd/2017 and 362/Hyd/2018 raise a purely legal question

AMERICAN INFOSERV PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

248 days; respectively stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond its control as per condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s). No rebuttal has come from either side to this effect. The impugned delays in all the above appeals are condoned therefore. 3. We next find both the assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.858/Hyd/2017 and 362/Hyd/2018 raise a purely legal question

AMERICAN INFOSERV PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

248 days; respectively stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond its control as per condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s). No rebuttal has come from either side to this effect. The impugned delays in all the above appeals are condoned therefore. 3. We next find both the assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.858/Hyd/2017 and 362/Hyd/2018 raise a purely legal question

DT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD vs. AMERICAN INFOSERV PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

248 days; respectively stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond its control as per condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s). No rebuttal has come from either side to this effect. The impugned delays in all the above appeals are condoned therefore. 3. We next find both the assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.858/Hyd/2017 and 362/Hyd/2018 raise a purely legal question

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action holding the impugned assessment as void ab initio as follows: “VIII) During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR submitted following submissions:- "SUBMISSIONS: On the above grounds of appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We make it clear that the file notings right from 05.10.2015 onwards indicate the assessee’s counsel name but nobody has represented him since 09.05.2018. These appeals had been fixed on 03.09.2021 wherein we had directed the department to serve the assessee afresh. The DCIT, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad has filed his correspondence dated

ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We make it clear that the file notings right from 05.10.2015 onwards indicate the assessee’s counsel name but nobody has represented him since 09.05.2018. These appeals had been fixed on 03.09.2021 wherein we had directed the department to serve the assessee afresh. The DCIT, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad has filed his correspondence dated

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We make it clear that the file notings right from 05.10.2015 onwards indicate the assessee’s counsel name but nobody has represented him since 09.05.2018. These appeals had been fixed on 03.09.2021 wherein we had directed the department to serve the assessee afresh. The DCIT, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad has filed his correspondence dated

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs. BADRI MANJULA , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that