APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

270A of the Act also involved a delay, viz., (i) AY: 2016-17 (delay of 140 days); (ii) AY: 2017-18 (delay of 141 days); and (iii) AY: 2018-19 (delay of 141 days). We thus, taking cognizance of the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee company qua its income tax proceedings before the lower authorities as well as the delay

MADHAVI BEERAVOLU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

1) of the Act, dated 08/08/2022; and (ii) under section 270A of the Act, dated 05/09/2024. 10. Sri Veeravenkata Satya Shiva Ryali, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted, that the Tribunal vide its order passed under ITA No.1154/Hyd/2025, dated 29/10/2025 had set aside the order passed

MADHAVI BEERAVOLU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

1) of the Act, dated 08/08/2022; and (ii) under section 270A of the Act, dated 05/09/2024. 10. Sri Veeravenkata Satya Shiva Ryali, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted, that the Tribunal vide its order passed under ITA No.1154/Hyd/2025, dated 29/10/2025 had set aside the order passed

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

1) S.C. 39 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt that even if the Court should be liberal in condonation of delay, it should\nbe unexcusable unless sufficient cause is shown. Their Lordships in para 20 in\nthe above case held as under:\n\n\"It was submitted that the Court should be liberal in condoning the\ndelay

NIRAJITA MITRA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

1. The order of the ld.CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty of Rs.31,300/- under section 270A(7) for under reporting of income by the learned Assessing Officer. 3. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the small delay

SKYBRIDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, (TP)-2 HYDERBAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

270A for under-reporting income and section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices were initiated separately. 3. The Registry has objected that the present appeal is not maintainable as per section 253(1)(d) of the Act. In the present case, AO has passed draft assessment order on 22/11/2023. Against that draft assessment order, assessee has not filed

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 356 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under : “ (1) The Ld. AO erred in not considering the residential status of the Appellant and he/she has erred in disputing the TRC issued by the government authorities of Mauritius

MAHESHWAR REDDY KURA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

270A for misreporting and underreporting, under Section 271AAC(1) for unexplained investment, and under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices, and 3 Maheshwar Reddy Kura issued the final demand after charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

Bench: Us:

270A. The appellant challenged the procedural lapses, including non- compliance with Sections 148A(b), 149, and 151, and seeks relief on these grounds. Reliance is placed on relevant case law, including the decision in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO, favoring procedural adherence. The appellant requests a condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing health and mental distress

PRAJYOTH KUMAR ADI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

1) of the Act, dated 01/08/2024 and 09/09/2024 were\nnot complied with. Also, the show cause notices (SCN), dated\n04/10/2024, 07/10/2024 and 07/11/2024 issued by the AO met the same\nfate and no reply was received from the assessee.\n3. The AO, based on the aforesaid facts, proceeded to frame the\nassessment to the best of his judgment under section

PRAJYOTH KUMAR ADI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.

1) of the Act, dated 01/08/2024 and 09/09/2024 were not complied with. Also, the show cause notices (SCN), dated 04/10/2024, 07/10/2024 and 07/11/2024 issued by the AO met the same fate and no reply was received from the assessee. 3. The AO, based on the aforesaid facts, proceeded to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment under section

PRAMEELA PORIKA,SURYAPET vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.593/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Prameela Porika Vs. Acit Suryapet Circle 7(1) Pan:Almpp8561C Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Prameela Porika (“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 27.10.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 7

1 of 7 ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 449 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit explaining the reason for delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, while filing

LAXMI DHARAMSOTH,MANCHYA THANDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

Bench: Us:

270A and 272A(1)(d) by the AO, the appellant has preferred appeals against the Tax Demand, Penalties. 5. The appellant has pleaded before the CIT Appeals to condone the delay and kindly look into the merits of the case of income escapement. But the Honorable CIT Appeals has denied the request of condonation and passed the orders. 3 Laxmi

SYED KHADER HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

section 270A of the tax is not taxable under the Act.\nThus to impose tax and penalty on an income which is otherwise not taxable (Pls\nrefer to Paragraph 2 (SUPRA)) on technical grounds is against Article 265 of the\nconstitution. The tax and penalty demand would wipe of my entire savings.\n\n14. The Appellant prays that