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

2.\nWe have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nfacts of the case. The tax due in the impugned case after the\norder of learned CIT(A) has been stated to be less than 1 lac\nand the seriousness has not been anticipated by the\nassessee and it was advised by the counsel that the tax\nshould be paid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered the facts that the client code modification was a genuine human error. 3. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income

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

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

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

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

2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 39 days in filing of the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit, explaining the reasons for the said delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that during the relevant period, the Executive Director

VENKATARATNAM TIRIMINCHI,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, NELLORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

2. Shri S. Prasad Rao, C.A. the learned Authorized Representative (for short “ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the present appeal filed by the assessee involves a delay of 192 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had crept in for the reason