KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

6.\n\"In N. Balakrishna (supra), it was reiterated that the\nword 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction\nand acceptability of the explanation is the criteria, and not\nthe length of delay as such by observing as under:\n\"In every case of delay there can be some lapse on the\npart of the litigant concerned. That alone

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.\n12.1.\n12.2.\n12. Appellant

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statical purposes

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

delay in filing of the above two appeals by the assessee is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA No.695/Hyd/2020 – A.Y 2012-13 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of electrical, civil and infrastructure projects. It filed its return of income on 29.9.2012 declaring total income

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statical purposes

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

delay in filing of the above two appeals by the assessee is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA No.695/Hyd/2020 – A.Y 2012-13 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of electrical, civil and infrastructure projects. It filed its return of income on 29.9.2012 declaring total income

THILAK BABU BOPPANA,CHITTOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member)

6 Tilak Babu Boppana vs. ITO considering the application of an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 11. Shri M.M. Shahid Sameer, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold

KREATIVE HOSTS ATRIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kreative Hosts Atria Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P. Murali & Co., C,A, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aadck 2362 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri T.Sunil Goutham (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad Dated 28.5.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 .

delay of 798 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 7. Facts of the case are that the assessee company is running a hotel in the name of one Continental. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.2,96,988/- towards interest to M/s. Deewan Housing

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:

43,207/-; (iii) addition of unsecured loan made under section 68 of the Act: Rs.16,19,208/-; (iv) disallowance towards TDS and VAT payable under section 43B of the Act: Rs. 6,08,694/-; and (v) addition of Rs.3,34,246/- on account of estimated profit on undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246/-, but at the same time declined the assessee

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.

43,92,120/- was raised. 5 Sri Raghavendra Agro Industries 7. Aggrieved by the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal challenging the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act and also sought condonation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of Electrical, Civil and Infrastructure projects. It filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of Electrical, Civil and Infrastructure projects. It filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of Electrical, Civil and Infrastructure projects. It filed

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of Electrical, Civil and Infrastructure projects. It filed

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result all the 5 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take up ITA No.697/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee and ITA No.750/Hyd/2020 filed by the Revenue for the A.Y 2014-15 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in execution of Electrical, Civil and Infrastructure projects. It filed