(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The brief acts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 11.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,648/- and for the assessment

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:

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing health and mental distress. 4.4 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. In the instant case, there is reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on flagged transactions indicating substantial cash deposits, cash withdrawals, and liquor purchases during

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

condone delay) and termination of proceedings. We concur with the observations of the CIT(A) that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA 21 of 2022 (supra) as was relied upon by the assessee company speaks only of filing of petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings relating to the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, but not for any other matters. Accordingly

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay) and termination of\nproceedings. We concur with the observations of the CIT(A) that the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in MA 21 of 2022 (supra) as was relied upon by the assessee\ncompany speaks only of filing of petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other\nquasi proceedings relating to the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, but not\nfor any other matters. Accordingly

VIVIN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2013-14 M/S. Vivin Laboratories Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-17(3), Hyderabad – 500 033. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacf 8021 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021 Order

condone the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30/11/2013 declaring income of Rs. 6,49,96,450/-. Subsequently

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD vs. AMERICAN INFOSERV PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delays in all the above appeals are condoned therefore. 3. We next find both the assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.858/Hyd/2017 and 362/Hyd/2018 raise a purely legal question of validity of the impugned assessment making various disallowances/additions based on the special auditor’s report submitted u/s.142(2A) of the Act. The assessee has raised its first, fourth to sixth substantive grounds

DT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD vs. AMERICAN INFOSERV PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delays in all the above appeals are condoned therefore. 3. We next find both the assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.858/Hyd/2017 and 362/Hyd/2018 raise a purely legal question of validity of the impugned assessment making various disallowances/additions based on the special auditor’s report submitted u/s.142(2A) of the Act. The assessee has raised its first, fourth to sixth substantive grounds

AMERICAN INFOSERV PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delays in all the above appeals are condoned therefore. 3. We next find both the assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.858/Hyd/2017 and 362/Hyd/2018 raise a purely legal question of validity of the impugned assessment making various disallowances/additions based on the special auditor’s report submitted u/s.142(2A) of the Act. The assessee has raised its first, fourth to sixth substantive grounds

AMERICAN INFOSERV PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delays in all the above appeals are condoned therefore. 3. We next find both the assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.858/Hyd/2017 and 362/Hyd/2018 raise a purely legal question of validity of the impugned assessment making various disallowances/additions based on the special auditor’s report submitted u/s.142(2A) of the Act. The assessee has raised its first, fourth to sixth substantive grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

condone the delay therein involved. On further appeal, it was the claim of the assessee that as it had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by 12 ITO vs. Shiva Kumar Thota the AO under Section 153C of the Act, which was purely an issue of law, therefore, there was no justification on the part

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY ,RAMADURGAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.660/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2016-17 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The order of the learned First Appellate Authority is not correct

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,YERRAGUNTLA vs. ITO WARD-2, NANDYAL

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

condone the three impugned delay(s) therefore. 3. We next advert the sole substantive issue between the parties, qua correctness of the Pr.CIT’s identical revision direction treating the corresponding regular assessments, dated 28.6.2017, 29.6.2017 and 27.6.2017; respectively as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer (s) had accepted these

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,PEDDA HARIVANAM vs. ITO WARD-1, ADONI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

condone the three impugned delay(s) therefore. 3. We next advert the sole substantive issue between the parties, qua correctness of the Pr.CIT’s identical revision direction treating the corresponding regular assessments, dated 28.6.2017, 29.6.2017 and 27.6.2017; respectively as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer (s) had accepted these

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,PAMULAPADU vs. ITO WARD-2, NANDYAL

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

condone the three impugned delay(s) therefore. 3. We next advert the sole substantive issue between the parties, qua correctness of the Pr.CIT’s identical revision direction treating the corresponding regular assessments, dated 28.6.2017, 29.6.2017 and 27.6.2017; respectively as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer (s) had accepted these

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. DIVI'S LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Divi’S Laboratories Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacd 6745J (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil S Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2021

delay of 73 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. :- 3 -: M/s Divi’s Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad. 3. Assessee is a company, engaged in the business of Manufacturing of active Pharma Ingredients & Intermediates, filed its e-return of income

ICONCEPT SOFTWARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,TDS,CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddya.Y. 2017-18 Iconcept Software Services Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Tds, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabci 3086 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By Sri T. Sunil Goutam, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 Order

condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company carrying on business of Software Application/Development. A survey action U/s. 133A(2A) was conducted in the assessee’s case on 27/11/2018. During the course

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delayed beyond prescribed time. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya Vs. Addl. CIT, reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.com 240 ( Pune Tribunal), wherein the issue of levying penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has been elaborately dealt with and the issue of reasonable cause that has been also discussed in detail. This

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delayed beyond prescribed time. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nav Maharashtra Vidyalaya Vs. Addl. CIT, reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.com 240 ( Pune Tribunal), wherein the issue of levying penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has been elaborately dealt with and the issue of reasonable cause that has been also discussed in detail. This