NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

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

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

251 @257 (SC) 77 ITR 518 @530 (SC) 18 For all the above reasons it is prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT be pleased to allow the appeal and direct the allowance U/s.32AD be allowed, for the Asst.Year 2016-17 of the Income Tax Act. 4.1 In addition to the above, the ld. AR of the assessee filed additional submissions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

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

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 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

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