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

AGRICUTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee\nare dismissed

1), Aayakar\nBhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad\nPr. CIT - Hyderabad\nDR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches\nGuard File\nBy Order\nPage 10 of 10", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee, Agricultural Market Committee, filed four appeals with a delay of 297 days. They claimed the delay was due to engagement of staff in seasonal activities, change of Secretary, and delayed knowledge of the order. The Revenue

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee\nare dismissed

1), Aayakar\nBhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad\nPr. CIT - Hyderabad\nDR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches\nGuard File\nBy Order\nPage 10 of 10", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Agricultural Market Committee, filed four appeals with a delay of 297 days. The assessee attributed the delay to staff engagement in seasonal agricultural activities, changes in the Secretary position, and a delay in knowledge

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

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

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee\nare dismissed

condonation petitions along with affidavits\nexplaining the reasons for delay. Since the reasons stated in all\nthe affidavits are identical, for the sake of completeness, we\nconsider the affidavit filed in ITA No.1199/Hyd/2025 to\nreproduce as under:\n भारतीय गैर न्यायिक\nपचास\nरुपये\nFIFTY\nRUPEES\nरु.50\nRs.50\nसत्यमेव जयते\nINDIA\nINDIA NON JUDICIAL\n३ तेलंगाना TELANGANA\nTran

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee\nare dismissed

condonation petitions along with affidavits\nexplaining the reasons for delay. Since the reasons stated in all\nthe affidavits are identical, for the sake of completeness, we\nconsider the affidavit filed in ITA No.1199/Hyd/2025 to\nreproduce as under:\nभारतीय गैर न्यायिक\nपचास\nरुपये\nFIFTY\nRUPEES\nरु.50\nRs.50\nINDIA\nINDIA NON JUDICIAL\n३ तेलंगाना TELANGANA\nTran Id: 250922151653772120\nDate

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

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

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

ALLAM ADAVAIAH ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who granted partial relief to the assessee. The finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) read as under : “4.2 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and findings of the Assessing Officer