BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

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

35(a), (b) and (c) of “Form\n3CD\" of the subject year, revealed that no quantitative particulars of\nthe principal items of goods traded or raw material as well as finished\ngoods were therein provided. Although the assessee company was\ndirected to submit the requisite information along with the bifurcation\nof closing stock and product stock register, but it failed

SLS DEVELOPERS,RANGA REDDY vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed in limine

35. The appeal was filed on\n03.05.2024 and we gave instructions to our CA Mallikarjun\nChatla, to take the appeal forward. We were under bonafide\nbelief that we could receive notice from the ld. NFAC and we can\npursue the matter through our CA.\n4.\nLater, in the 2nd week of May 2025, I met our CA for\nGST work

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED CHENNARAOPET,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

Bench: Us:

35. Rather, it was observed by him that the assessee society had stated that the delay condonation petition that will be filed along with affidavit with the written submissions, which may be considered. 4. The CIT(A), in all fairness, issued a notice under Section

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing of this appeal on the grounds that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of him seeking remedy u/s 154 of the Act and as he was unable to get any order from the department, the appeal has been filed which delay for this reason was requested

SRI RAGHVENDRA AGRO INDUSTRIES,MANTRALAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, ADONI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Sworn By Shri Archaka Vyasarajachar, Partner Of The Assessee Firm, Explaining The Facts Relating To Filing Of The Appeal. As Per The Affidavit, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Served On The Assessee On 25.09.2024 & The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 24.11.2024. The Assessee Submitted That, Form No. 36, As Per The Prescribed Procedure, Was Filed Electronically On 20.11.2024, Which Is Within The Period Of Limitation.

35 for condonation of delay were not supported by any evidence. In our considered view, the delay is very small, and the reason given by the assessee is ill health. Since the delay is very small and the reason given by the assessee constitutes sufficient cause, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay

MALEPATI SIVASHANKARREDDY,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, NANDYAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.47/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Malepati Sivashankar Vs. Income Tax Officer Reddy, Ward – 1 Kurnool Nandyal Pan:Dxtps2891J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order

35 filed by the assessee and not considered the petition for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit dated, 13/05/2022 filed by the assessee vide reply dated 30/05/2022. The assessee has filed the acknowledgement of filing of the petition for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit placed at Page No.7 of the synopsis. Thus, it is manifest

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDEABAD vs. AVRA LABORATORIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue, which was condoned.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction. The donation was for a purpose eligible under Section 35

AGRICUTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee\nare dismissed

section 147 and completed the assessment by\nTARY मोटर determining an income of 8,59,576 and raising consequential demand.\nLAXMAN RAO\nB.SC.,LLB\nADVOCATE &\nNOTARY\nTOY-503111 T.S.\n2ND Page\nPage 2 of 10\n-2-\nThat the matter was earlier restored to the file of the Assessing Officer by\nthe Hon'ble Tribunal