BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

32 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai280Chennai214Indore167Delhi165Ahmedabad156Karnataka139Kolkata130Jaipur124Surat115Lucknow105Bangalore97Chandigarh57Cochin45Pune41Cuttack40Panaji39Hyderabad32Allahabad31Rajkot29Nagpur25Patna24Jabalpur21Varanasi19Jodhpur18Visakhapatnam17Raipur14Guwahati11Ranchi9Amritsar6SC4Telangana2Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay19Addition to Income18Penalty16Section 271(1)(c)15Section 14714Section 143(3)13Limitation/Time-bar12Section 1489Section 68

MAHATHI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 802/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad – 4, dated 14.03.2024 passed under Section 263 of 2 Mahati Engineering Industries Private Limited Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and pertains to the assessment year 2018-19. The grounds

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

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

8
Exemption7
Section 143(2)6
Section 69A6
ITAT Hyderabad
06 Jan 2022
AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

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

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

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

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

SKYBRIDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, (TP)-2 HYDERBAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 154Section 253(1)(d)Section 270A

253(1)(d) of the Act clearly postulates right of the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal in case, the AO passes any order in pursuant to the directions of the DRP. In the present case, the order passed by the AO was not on account of any direction but was passed on account of the obligation under

D PEDA REDDAIAH ,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PRODDUTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri D. Pedda Reddaiah Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop:Sri Lakshmi Ward-1 Proddatur Venkateswara Wines, Kadapa Distt. Pan:Agipd1836F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2020 Order This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y 2010-11 Filed Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-Kurnool, Dated 4.3.2015. 2. At The Outset It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 1422 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating As Under: “1. I, D. Peda Reddaiah, S/O D.Subbarayudu, Aged About 47 Years, Prop. Of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines, Housed At 11/231, Badvel Road, Mydukur Village, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, Do Solemnly Affirm & State As Under: 2. I Am An Illiterate & Not Well Conversant With The Statutory Provisions & I Carried On Business In Wines For Two Years At Mydkur Village. I Don'T Have Any Formal Education. 3. I Have Carried On Wines Business Under The Name & Style Of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines For About Two Page 1 Of 11

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, DR
Section 143(3)

Section 253(1)(c) of the Act. 6.2. The reason, we have come to the conclusion that the counsel for the Assessee would have taken instructions from the Assessee in preparing the petition for condonation of delay, is, because, the name of the Chartered Accountant is mentioned in the petition. Learned counsel could not have conjured up the name

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

ITA 996/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 43BSection 68

d) of the Act, dated 29/07/2022 was passed by the AO. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/07/2022. 5. The AO thereafter vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/05/2023 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.8,15,30,754/- after making certain additions, viz., (i) cash

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 644/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

D E R SRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M.: These cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool dated 20.06.2016 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for the assessment year 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1243/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

D E R SRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M.: These cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnool dated 20.06.2016 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for the assessment year 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1111/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)

253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP") was commenced by Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), 3 ITA.Nos.1111, 1112 and 1113/Hyd./2025 Hyderabad Bench vide order dated 15th November 2022 in the case of appellant company and Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed who is required to manage the operations of company

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)

253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP") was commenced by Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), 3 ITA.Nos.1111, 1112 and 1113/Hyd./2025 Hyderabad Bench vide order dated 15th November 2022 in the case of appellant company and Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed who is required to manage the operations of company

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)

253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP") was commenced by Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), 3 ITA.Nos.1111, 1112 and 1113/Hyd./2025 Hyderabad Bench vide order dated 15th November 2022 in the case of appellant company and Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed who is required to manage the operations of company

VAGDEVI REDDY TANDUR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 505/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy
Section 195Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.05.2022 for the AY 2020-21 on the following grounds : “1. The Order of the Ld.CIT ( A) passed U/s 250 of the Act dated

CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1901/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue directed against a common order of CIT(A) – II, Hyderabad dated 25/03/2014 for the AYs 2006- 07 to 2008-09. As identical issues are involved in these appeals, the same were clubbed and heard together and therefore

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1153/HYD/2014[2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue directed against a common order of CIT(A) – II, Hyderabad dated 25/03/2014 for the AYs 2006- 07 to 2008-09. As identical issues are involved in these appeals, the same were clubbed and heard together and therefore

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1154/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue directed against a common order of CIT(A) – II, Hyderabad dated 25/03/2014 for the AYs 2006- 07 to 2008-09. As identical issues are involved in these appeals, the same were clubbed and heard together and therefore

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: All these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue directed against a common order of CIT(A) – II, Hyderabad dated 25/03/2014 for the AYs 2006- 07 to 2008-09. As identical issues are involved in these appeals, the same were clubbed and heard together and therefore

SRISAILA KSHETRA YOGI VEMA REDDY NITHYANNADANA SATRAM,KURNOOL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

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

ITA 430/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Srisaila Kshetra Yogi Vema Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Reddy Nityannadana Satram, Tirupati. Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Aadts7734G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gbs Maitreya Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri GBS MaitreyaFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav
Section 10Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5

1)(d) of the Act. 3 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. The ld. AR for the assessee had drawn our attention to the orders passed

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1731/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

1 of 12 ITA Nos 1730 to 1732 Baptist Church Dilsukhnagar 2. There is a delay of 266 days in filing these 3 appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the President of the assessee’s Trust. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1732/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

1 of 12 ITA Nos 1730 to 1732 Baptist Church Dilsukhnagar 2. There is a delay of 266 days in filing these 3 appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the President of the assessee’s Trust. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1730/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

1 of 12 ITA Nos 1730 to 1732 Baptist Church Dilsukhnagar 2. There is a delay of 266 days in filing these 3 appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the President of the assessee’s Trust. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there