SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

NICHINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY NICHINO CHEMICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NOW MERGED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.366/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nichino India Private Dcit / Acit Limited (Formerly Nichino Vs. Circle-5(1) Chemical India Private Hyderabad Limited, Now Merged) Hyderabad [Pan : Aaecn5394B] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ms.Suvibha Nolkha, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri D.Praveen, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/09/2024

condone the delay stating that the delay of 718 days is inordinate, and the reasons stated by the assessee do not constitute sufficient cause. The learned CIT(A) further held that subsequent to the passing of the order under section 143(1), if any order under section 143(3) was passed and appeal against such 143(3) order is preferred

NARAYANSINTHY GAJENDRA PATRO,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 13(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 326 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee has pleaded the following grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in upholding the Learned Centralized Processing Centre ("Ld.CPC") Order, which is bad in law and against

LATE RAJESHAM RAGI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Vs. Pin – 505 001. Telangana. Karimnagar. Pan Aaxpr4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Rv Nageshwar Sharma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law in as much the notice initiating the proceedings were issued on a wrong person. The appellant had raised

PURNA CHANDER RAGAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay of 33 days involved in the filing of the present appeal. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 28/11/2017 declaring an income of Rs. 8,79,830/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine and verify “large cash

TOUCH TONE TELESERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 987/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Touch Tone Teleservices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 3-6-550/4, 1St Floor, Ward-4(1), Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aacft5196N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays a presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced when, If produced, be 4 Touch Tone Teleservices vs. ITO unfavorable to the person who withholds it. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect

SUNITHA MALU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed its revised return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 26/12/2018, declaring an income of Rs.23,05,820/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verifying “large deduction claimed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INTEGRATED CLEANROOM TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Integrated Cleanroom Tax, Circle 2(1) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aabci0328R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Kiran Katta, Dr Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Date Of Hearing: 16/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021

delay is condoned and we proceed with the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30th October, 2017 admitting loss of Rs.40,89,46,720/-. Later on assessee revised the return on 27th September,2018 admitting total income of Rs. 40,75,75,260/-; and the case was selected for complete

CENTENARY BAPTIST CHURCH,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- EXEMPTIONS 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation of delay filed along with the appeals of the assessee. 6. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. As per the rules of the Tribunal, after the receipt of the appeals, the same are required to be scrutinized by the Registry, and after the scrutiny, if there are any defects, then notice for fixing

CENTENARY BAPTIST CHURCH,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation of delay filed along with the appeals of the assessee. 6. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. As per the rules of the Tribunal, after the receipt of the appeals, the same are required to be scrutinized by the Registry, and after the scrutiny, if there are any defects, then notice for fixing

JAYA DIAGNOSTIC & RESEARCH CENTRE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Jaya Diagnostic & Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Circle 2(2) Research Centre Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacj5137J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th October, 2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 7 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. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed Along With The Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay & After Hearing The Learned Dr, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. Page 1 Of 13

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Page 1 of 13 ITA No 153 of 2018 Jaya Diagnostic 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of diagnostic and medical services, filed its return of income declaring total income

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the Cross Objection for hearing. 2.1. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2.2 The Revenue has raised the following grounds : “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the Cross Objection for hearing. 2.1. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2.2 The Revenue has raised the following grounds : “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case