NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

condoned if there is sufficient compliance with the main requirements. This, however, did not in any manner tinker with the view that an ambiguous exemption clause should be interpreted favouring the revenue. Here again this Court applied different tests when considering the ambiguity of the exemption notification which requires strict construction and after doing so at the stage of applying

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

condone the delay. In view of this difficulty, we are unable to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the assessee. We have also gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the assessee. That was a case where the assessee was denied the benefit of Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone delay in case he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-s. (4) provides that the CIT has no power to revise any order under s. 264(1) : (i) while an appeal against the order is pending before the AAC, and (ii) when the order has been

SHARE MICROFIN LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 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. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Page 1 of 18 ITA 430 of 2020 Share Microfin Ltd 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged into providing financial services via micro financing. It filed its return of income on 27.09.2016 which

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

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

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

SRI AJEYA SANKARA TRUST,TIRUPATI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1366/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Ajeya Sankara Trust Vs. Cit (Exemption) Tirupati Hyderabad Pan:Aaxts2264F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H. Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 17/05/2025 Of Cit (Exemption) Whereby The Application Of The Assessee In Form 10Ab Seeking Regular Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Was Rejected On The Ground Of Barred By Limitation.

condonation of the delay, if there is a reasonable cause for filing the application. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the amendment of inserting the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) and the cause of delay in filing the application has been explained by the assessee, the same may be treated as filed

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

delay, does not come under\n\"sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge\ndelay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal\nfiled by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the\nappeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un-\nadmitted.\n\n11.\nIn the result

SWAROOP MANNAVA, IRS, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD vs. NAVABHARATH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

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

delay is condoned therefore. 3. The Revenue has proposed the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,75,91,121/- towards remission of liability u/s.41(1) of the Act neither providing opportunity for AO for verification of facts

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.

41,816/-, on the ground of inconsistency between the return of income and the tax audit report with reference to disallowances under Section 40(b) of the Act. Consequently, the total income was determined at ₹1,09,59,220/- and a tax demand of ₹43,92,120/- was raised. 5 Sri Raghavendra Agro Industries 7. Aggrieved by the intimation issued

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 for hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA 26/Hyd/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11 : “1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds urged by the assessee on correctness of additions / disallowance on merits