DAGGUBATI VENKATESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.645/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Daggubati Venkatesh Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai Income Tax, Vs. [Pan No.Aahpb0939Q] Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 04/03/2025 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Daggubati Venkatesh (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 21 Days. Learned Ar Explained That The Delay Was Due To The Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Therefore, Pleaded To Condone The Delay. Heard Learned Dr. Delay Is Condoned. 2. Penalty In This Matter Is Levied Under Section 270A(9) Of The Act On The Ground Of Under Reported Income In Consequence Of Any Misreporting Thereof By The Assessee. Learned Ar Argued That The Learned Assessing

Delay is condoned. 2. Penalty in this matter is levied under section 270A(9) of the Act on the ground

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-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), 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

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

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

SURESH PRODUCTIONS ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Delay is condoned. 2. Penalty in this matter is levied under section 270A(9) of the Act on the ground

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)

2,15,052/- with respect to the tax payable on the under reported income of the assessee. 5. Thereafter, the assessee aggrieved with the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06/03/2024 carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same on account of delay involved

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)

2,15,052/- with respect to the tax payable on the under reported income of the assessee. 5. Thereafter, the assessee aggrieved with the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06/03/2024 carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same on account of delay involved

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. (2

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

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

condoned.\n5.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of\nappeal:\n1. “The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is not\ncorrect either on facts or in law and in both.\n2. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in disposing off the appeal\nwithout giving adequate opportunity, considering the fact that all\nthe notices were issued

SDS METALS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sds Metals (I) Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Hyderabad. Ward –3(1), C/O. P. Murali & Co., Hyderabad. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Telangana – 500082. Pan : Aascs1826P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Krishna, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Yadagiri, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.03.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.18.09.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 77 days. He has moved a condonation application explaining reasons thereof. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I allow the application

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

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 the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the email

THE KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.701/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Karimnagar District Cooperative Vs. Income Tax Officer Central Bank Limited Ward-2 Karimnagar Karimnagar [Pan :Aabat0905H] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Dr

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the matter. 2. Facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the assessee is a cooperative bank carrying on banking business and had filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs.9,50,67,410/- and paid the taxes thereon. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course

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.

2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions, viz.,(i) sale of immovable property: Rs.78.40 lakhs; (ii) sale of immovable property: Rs.30 lakhs; and (iii) receipt of interest income on securities: Rs.1,44,752/-, but had not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings under section