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

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

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

condoning the same.\n\n14. Apropos the impugned order before us, we find that the CIT(A)\nhad dismissed the appeal by declining to exercise the discretion\nvested him under sub-section (3) of section 249 of the Act and not\ncondoning the delay of 36

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

36 is generated and the appeal is filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 21.05.2025, with a delay of 202 days in filing the appeal. 5. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not willful but is for the reasons mentioned above. It is submitted that the partners of the appellant had never used the email

KAUSALYA AGRO FARMS AMD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.804/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

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

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

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 868 days, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- [Rs. Ten Thousand Only] to be paid to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, within a period of one month from the date of this order. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the appeal : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

GAYATRI ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee- company is engaged in the business of development, construction and operation of power generation projects, filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2018- 2019 on 16.08.2019 declaring Rs.NIL

THE WARANGAL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,HANAMKONDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) The Warangal District Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Cooperative Central Bank Income Tax, Limited, Hanamkonda, Circle-3(1), Warangal. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabtt3137G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 11/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

condonation of the delay in filing of “Form 10IF”, and that no relief in respect of interest under sections 234A, 234B or 234C shall be admissible, in line with the CBDT order dated 01.09.2025. 14. Apropos the disallowance by the AO of the delayed deposit of the employees share of contribution towards PF/ESI u/s 36

MALLIKARJUNA KUNTRAPAKA,ANDHRAPRADESH vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), TIRUPATI, ANDHRAPRADESH

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1899/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Sri Mallikarjuna Kuntrapaka, Tirupati. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pin – 517 501. Ward-1(3), Tirupati. Andhra Pradesh Pan Aktpk4751B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri V Narendra Sharma, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.10.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2

condone the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A]/NFAC is further not justified in disposing off the appeal on limitation without issue of any notice and thus, the impugned order

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 10. Coming to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT for revising the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT had gravely erred in law and facts

ARYA VYSYA TRUST,VIKARABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

Bench: Us:

36,853/- to the income returned by the assessee and vide his order passed under Section 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 08/09/2021 determined its income at Rs. 4,16,820/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee trust carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee-trust involved a delay

UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

condoning the delay, observed that “since the issue under appeal is a settled issue, the AO may consider the issue u/s 154 after considering the necessary supporting evidences filed by the appellant allow the same as per law.” We have also gone through the Tax Audit Report i.e. Form No. 3CD for both the years at Sl.No

UNITED RAIL ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

condoning the delay, observed that “since the issue under appeal is a settled issue, the AO may consider the issue u/s 154 after considering the necessary supporting evidences filed by the appellant allow the same as per law.” We have also gone through the Tax Audit Report i.e. Form No. 3CD for both the years at Sl.No

DARSHAN VIJAYSINH BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, FACELESS CENTER DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

condone the slight delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeals for both the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 which are identical in nature however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming

DARSHAN V BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

condone the slight delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeals for both the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 which are identical in nature however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming

VE VEE'S MANAGERIAL SERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 167/Hyd/2022 & 168/Hyd/2022 are allowed and ITA No

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

condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. Although, a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,57,34,616/- made by the AO in the order passed u/s. 154 of the I.T.Act on account of delayed payment