NARESH KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 10 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.547/Hyd/2025 3 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who had not filed any return of income under section 139(1) of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Hinduja National Power Income Tax, Corporation Limited, Circle – 2 (1), Sanathinagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Pan : Aabch2426D

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.11.2014 electronically u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 declaring total income of Rs.5,00,16,690/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny

AJAZ FAROOQI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay of 3 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed

DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S VARALAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS,, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

276 of 2013 CO 37 of 2018 and ITA 2179 of 2018 Varalakshmi Constructions Khammam must prevail over all technical aspects in case the litigant is able to sufficiently explain the delay in exercising the corresponding legal remedy(ies). We therefore, reject the Revenue’s vehement arguments contesting the assessee’s averments in the two condonation petitions i.e. both cross