BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

KRANTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHADRACHALLAM vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

condone such delay and therefore, upheld the disallowance of Rs.10,72,66,472/- and dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri DLS Narasimha Rao, CA, submitted that, the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

285/-, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs. 24,000/-, disallowance under section 43B of the Act at Rs. 1,00,01,378/- and Rs. 4,22,647/-. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) referred to the submissions made by the assessee and also to the decisions

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

285/-, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs. 24,000/-, disallowance under section 43B of the Act at Rs. 1,00,01,378/- and Rs. 4,22,647/-. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) referred to the submissions made by the assessee and also to the decisions

MAHUA BHARATPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MADHUCON AGRA- JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED),),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

section 43 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is the cash support in the nature of shareholders fund to make the project viable and to provide financial strength to the assessee to avail further financial support from the financial institutions in the shape of loan. The learned CIT (A) has considered this issue in para 5.3 to 5.3.2 as under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON AGRA JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

section 43 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is the cash support in the nature of shareholders fund to make the project viable and to provide financial strength to the assessee to avail further financial support from the financial institutions in the shape of loan. The learned CIT (A) has considered this issue in para 5.3 to 5.3.2 as under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON AGRA JAIPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue appeals for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.285 & 286/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

section 43 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is the cash support in the nature of shareholders fund to make the project viable and to provide financial strength to the assessee to avail further financial support from the financial institutions in the shape of loan. The learned CIT (A) has considered this issue in para 5.3 to 5.3.2 as under

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

delay in filing this appeal 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

delay in filing this appeal 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

delay in filing this appeal 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income

CH MARTHANDA RAO & CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

Bench: Us:

condoning the delay involved in filing of the present appeal before us. 11. On merits, the Ld. A.R submitted that the CIT(A) had erred in merely setting aside the AO’s order without considering the merits of the case, viz. (i). that the assessee firm had no legal existence at the time of assessment; (ii). that the incomes/receipts assessed

CH MARTHANDA RAO AND CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

Bench: Us:

condoning the delay involved in filing of the present appeal before us. 11. On merits, the Ld. A.R submitted that the CIT(A) had erred in merely setting aside the AO’s order without considering the merits of the case, viz. (i). that the assessee firm had no legal existence at the time of assessment; (ii). that the incomes/receipts assessed

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

delay 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. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Spandana spoorty Financial Services Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of 'Micro-finance'. The assessee company filed its return

NULAND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFIERS ,WARD -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nuland Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Ward 16(2) Pan:Aaccn5235D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8.5.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2011-12. 2. There Is A Delay Of 545 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 Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid. After Hearing Both The Sides & Following The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Write Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020 Order Dated 10.01.2022 Wherein It Is Held That The Period From 15.3.2020 Till

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of undertaking infrastructure activities. It filed its return of income on 21.7.2011 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated

KALPANA ALEXANDER ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-6(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charydr.Kalpana Alexander, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, [Pan No. Achpa5433A] Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

285/- towards income from business and profession and Rs.15,15,191/- towards income from other sources. It was noticed that the assessee did not declare any income towards capital gains, after claiming deduction of Rs.37,27,774/- u/s. 54 of the Act and Rs.47,77,180/- u/s. 54EC of the Act. 3. It was picked up for scrutiny to verify

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing