SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MUTTAM,KADAPA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

condonation of delay is rejected, and\nconsequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by\nlimitation.\n7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1164/Hyd/2025 is\ndismissed on account of limitation.\nITA No.2287/Hyd/2025:\n8. The brief facts of the case in the present appeal are that the assessee is\na religious trust, which

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

condonation of delay is rejected, and Page 5 of 12 ITA No.1164 & 2287/Hyd/2025 Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1164/Hyd/2025 is dismissed on account of limitation. ITA No.2287/Hyd/2025: 8. The brief facts

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

condone the delay involved in the\nfiling of the present appeal.\n16. Coming to the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the\nassessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing\nof pharmaceuticals, was originally assessed by the AO vide his order\npassed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/12/2018, wherein, after\nexhaustive deliberations

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

delay, does not come under\n\"sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge\ndelay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal\nfiled by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the\nappeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un-\nadmitted.\n\n11.\nIn the result

MANDADI VIJAYA LAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

256 ITR 560 (Mad) wherein\nit was, inter alia, observed that as the Tribunal while declining to condone\nthe delay involved in the appeal, had proceeded with and considered\nand rejected the appeal on merits, therefore, it was to be inferred that\nthe Tribunal was itself not convinced that the appeal should be dismissed\nas barred by limitation

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

NAFEES SULTANA,HYEDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD.

Bench: Us:

Section 25B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows deduction of 30% from arrears of rent received before taxing the same as income under the head "Income from House Property". 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal without condoning the delay thereby depriving the appellant to avail the benefits available

SHARE MICROFIN LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Page 1 of 18 ITA 430 of 2020 Share Microfin Ltd 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged into providing financial services via micro financing. It filed its return of income on 27.09.2016 which

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

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