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

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

sections": [ "270A", "37(1)", "253(5)", "276C(1)", "277", "12AA", "251(1)(a)", "31(3)(a)", "84", "254" ], "issues": "Whether the delay of 506 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

251(1) of the Act, i.e, ".....may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment ...." which, thus, does not compulsorily require the CIT(A) to set aside and refer the assessment in every case where it is made u/s 144 of the Act. 15. We thus, in terms

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

251(1) of the Act, i.e, ".....may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment ...." which, thus, does not compulsorily require the CIT(A) to set aside and refer the assessment in every case where it is made u/s 144 of the Act. 15. We thus, in terms

JAGADESSHWAR RAO CHIDARA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 29/12/2017 determined his total income at Rs. 9,46,180/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities on 07 occasions by the CIT(A), had neither participated in the appellate proceedings nor furnished

GOVIND GOUD DADIVELA,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

251(1)(C) of the Act. Thus, appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Both the Revenue and the Assessee being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) have carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe that the appeal filed by the assessee involves a delay of 54 days. On perusal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR vs. DADIVELA GOVIND GOUD, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us.

251(1)(C) of the Act. Thus, appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Both the Revenue and the Assessee being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) have carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe that the appeal filed by the assessee involves a delay of 54 days. On perusal

KAUSALYA AGRO FARMS AMD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.804/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

MUMTAZ ALI MOHD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for standalone reason that the assessee despite 9 Mumtaz Ali Mohd vs. ITO having been afforded 5 opportunities, i.e., vide notices dated 04/10/2023, 20/10/2023, 08/11/2023, 24/11/2023 and 18/12/2023 had failed

OPTISERV MUSKAN SERVICES PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condonation of delay along with affidavit. 3. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A), Hyderabad’s order dated 14/07/2015 for AY 2005- 06 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee when the assessee preferred an appeal

OPTISERV MUSKAN SERVICES PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condonation of delay along with affidavit. 3. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A), Hyderabad’s order dated 14/07/2015 for AY 2005- 06 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee when the assessee preferred an appeal

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

CHANDINI DUVVURI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and a non-resident during the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16. As per information available on record through the Risk Management Strategy

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

251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. 15. The assessee has also raised various additional grounds; however, these grounds are not emanating from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act but these grounds were raised by the assessee which were already subject matter

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

251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. 15. The assessee has also raised various additional grounds; however, these grounds are not emanating from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act but these grounds were raised by the assessee which were already subject matter

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

251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. 15. The assessee has also raised various additional grounds; however, these grounds are not emanating from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act but these grounds were raised by the assessee which were already subject matter

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

251(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. 15. The assessee has also raised various additional grounds; however, these grounds are not emanating from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A of the Act but these grounds were raised by the assessee which were already subject matter