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

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 868 days in filing the appeal and admit the same. 12 ITA.No.154/Hyd./2021 Solemnly affirmed and signed before me on this the Pusa Nanda Kumar 15 day of March, 2021. Deponent” 4.1. In addition to the affidavit, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has explained the cause of delay that his Counsel

SHV ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

254 and 263 of the Act. Assessee preferred an appeal against this order dated 30/12/2016 before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. As the matters stood thus, assessee claims to have been advised by an external consultant to prefer an appeal against the order dated 09/11/2015 passed by the Ld. PCIT before the Tribunal. By the time the Page

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

SAMPATH REDDY VEM,WARANGAL. vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL.

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

condone the delay of 397 days, without appreciating the genuine and bonafide reasons beyond the appellant's control that led to the delay in filing the appeal. b) The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in ignoring that all statutory notices were served on the email ID of the appellant's previous Chartered Accountant, and due to which the appellant

SAMPATH REDDY VEM,WARANGAL. vs. ITO., WARD - 1, WARANGAL.

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

condone the delay of 397 days, without appreciating the genuine and bonafide reasons beyond the appellant's control that led to the delay in filing the appeal. b) The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in ignoring that all statutory notices were served on the email ID of the appellant's previous Chartered Accountant, and due to which the appellant

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:

254/- and U/s. 234B of Rs. 3,25,81368/-. 8. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of PVC Pipes had not filed its return of income for the subject year

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:

254/- and U/s. 234B of Rs. 3,25,81368/-. 8. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of PVC Pipes had not filed its return of income for the subject year

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

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

254 days, for\nwhich they have filed one combined condonation petition in the form\nof Affidavit.\nLearned Department Representative (“Ld. DR\")\nsubmitted that, during the relevant period of delay of the C.O., there\nwas transfer of the Ld. AO, nomination of the Ld. AO for election\nduty and there were time barring assessment, penalty cases, reopening\nof assessment

KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that against the consequential order passed by the AO, dated 29/12/2007 :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 2095 to 2097/Hyd/2018 Karim Nawaz Alladin, Hyd. for the impugned AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) with

KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that against the consequential order passed by the AO, dated 29/12/2007 :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 2095 to 2097/Hyd/2018 Karim Nawaz Alladin, Hyd. for the impugned AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) with

KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that against the consequential order passed by the AO, dated 29/12/2007 :- 2 -: ITA Nos. 2095 to 2097/Hyd/2018 Karim Nawaz Alladin, Hyd. for the impugned AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) with

ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

condone the delay and admitted the CO for adjudication. 4. As regards ground No. 2 pertaining to disallowance u/s 14A, during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased shares of M/s Hitech Print Systems Pvt. Ltd (HPSL) for a consideration of Rs. 14 crores. The AO noted that the investment is towards share capital and the dividend

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

condone the delay and admitted the CO for adjudication. 4. As regards ground No. 2 pertaining to disallowance u/s 14A, during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased shares of M/s Hitech Print Systems Pvt. Ltd (HPSL) for a consideration of Rs. 14 crores. The AO noted that the investment is towards share capital and the dividend

ACIT,CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S SURESH PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the ground of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 183 days in filing of the CO is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under : “1. The CIT(A) order is erroneous, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction U/s..80-IA, to the tune of Rs.13.49 lakhs