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

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

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

263 of the Act. Section 5 is not meant for such purposes. With this view of the matter, we do not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

263, 264\n(Madras)].\n\n5.5 In this regard, it will be relevant to examine how the Courts have dealt with\nsimilar cases. A reference may be made to decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras\nin the case of Madhu Dadha vs. ACIT reported 317 ITR 458 (Mad); (2010) 186\nTaxmann 8 (Madras). In this case, there

GOPAL REDDY GATTU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-4 on 28.01.2025, revising the assessment made under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 26.12.2022. As against the said order, he was required to file an appeal before the Tribunal within the statutory period of 60 days, i.e., on or before

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

263 CTR (Kar) 549 and by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in Srimaan Industries Private Limited Vs. ITO [2022] 217 TTJ (Hyd) 120. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, and considering the bona fide reasons explained by the assessee, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case

ANTHELIO BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee dismissed

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

delay may be condoned, because the petitioner believed that the option to seek remedy for filing an appeal was after the consequential order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

Section 263 of the Act, dated 28/02/2025, by filing an appeal with the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the accountant of the assessee company contacted him on 05/05/2025, and, thereafter, as per his advice, the appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 13/05/2025, which, however, involved a delay of 15 days. The Ld. AR to support his contention

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 delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the petition filed by the assessee submitted that the learned PCIT has issued show cause notice under section 263

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 delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the petition filed by the assessee submitted that the learned PCIT has issued show cause notice under section 263

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

263 of the Act. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. 5.1. It is pertinent to note that sub-section

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263, consequently, the original assessment\norder passed by the A.O. comes to life and gets restored. Ld. CIT(A) has to adjudicate\nthe appeal preferred by the assessee on the additions made in the assessment order\ndated 29.03.2004. We are of the opinion that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which\nwas dismissed as not maintainable should

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the petition filed by the assessee submitted that the learned PCIT has issued show cause notice under section 263

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of civil construction of roads, culverts buildings etc. The assessee filed it's return of income for the assessment year

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

263 of the Act on 25.03.2024, but the filing of the present appeal was delayed by 54 days due to his ill health. The assessee to fortify his claim has filed before us medical certificates/prescriptions. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that as there were justifiable reasons leading to the delay of 54 days involved in filing

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

263 of the Act dt.28.03.2016 determining the revised total income or loss of the assessee at (-) Rs.49,56,900/- interalia making an addition of Rs.22,13,080/- towards unexplained cost of construction of building by invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Aggrieved with the same, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal

KANCHERLA MEDICAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee dismissed

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

delay Page 2 of 6 may be condoned, because the petitioner believed that the option to seek remedy for filing an appeal was after the consequential order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263

RAMA DEVI TUMMALA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 263 are without valid grounds and are based on an incorrect understanding of the facts and the law. The reassessment order, if passed, would result in a ITA No.778/Hyd/2024 3 baseless and unwarranted demand, causing undue hardship to the appellant. 8. The appellant to raise any additional grounds of appeal that may arise during the course of the hearing