GOPAL REDDY GATTU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

481/- credited into the Profit & Loss account is set a side to the Assessing officer. 3 Gopal Reddy Gattu 8. The appellant to raise any additional grounds of appeal that may arise during the course of the hearing.” 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 70 days in filing the captioned appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarvotham Care, having income from two units, one being a solar power generation unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. AZINGO SOFT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 1 day in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

AZINGO SOFT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., HYD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 1 day in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order dated 30 January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

RCC LABORATORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay is condoned therefore. 3. It emerges at the outset that all these three appeals raise former issue in ITA No.1800/Hyd/2018 and sole substantive grievance in latter twin cases; seeks to challenge both the lower authorities’ action denying Section 35(2AB) weighted deduction claim(s) of Rs.2,61,32,524/-, Rs.86,01,037/- and Rs.4,81,64,481

TARAKARAMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned. All these cases are now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Both the learned representatives inform us at the outset that all these assesses’ appeals challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s order withdrawing their respective Section 10(23C)(vi) approvals. And that we ought to take up ITA No.320/Hyd/2020 in the case of Karshak Vidya Parishad

CHURCH EDUCATINAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned. All these cases are now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Both the learned representatives inform us at the outset that all these assesses’ appeals challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s order withdrawing their respective Section 10(23C)(vi) approvals. And that we ought to take up ITA No.320/Hyd/2020 in the case of Karshak Vidya Parishad

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned. All these cases are now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Both the learned representatives inform us at the outset that all these assesses’ appeals challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s order withdrawing their respective Section 10(23C)(vi) approvals. And that we ought to take up ITA No.320/Hyd/2020 in the case of Karshak Vidya Parishad

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned. All these cases are now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Both the learned representatives inform us at the outset that all these assesses’ appeals challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s order withdrawing their respective Section 10(23C)(vi) approvals. And that we ought to take up ITA No.320/Hyd/2020 in the case of Karshak Vidya Parishad