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

1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition

GMR HOSPITALITY AND RETAIL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO HYDERABAD DUTY FREE RETAIL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2016-17 Gmr Hospitality & Retail Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited (Successor Of Ward-2(2), Hyderabad Duty Free Retail Hyderabad. Limited), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcg 2928 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain, Ar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

condone the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds and alternate grounds in its appeal. However, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO who had made addition

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

1), [PAN No. AACCS8676D] Hyderabad अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा / Assessee by: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, AR राज" व "ारा / Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 29/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 25/07/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 09/11/2015, passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

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

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)

1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -10, Hyderabad (CIT(A)) is erroneous on law and on facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the Ground Number 3. being " Notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid and bad in law as it is in violation of Section 151A r.w.s. 144B

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

TPL - SUCG CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2.1. The assessee has raised more or less similar grounds for both the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the grounds raised in ITA No.1109/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2021-22 read as under : “1. Addition of an amount of Rs.35,30,677 in the order passed under section