RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26.12.2019, u/s 271AAC of the Act, dated 06.01.2022 and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, dated 03.09.2021. As the captioned appeals are inextricably interwoven or interlinked, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26.12.2019, u/s 271AAC of the Act, dated 06.01.2022 and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, dated 03.09.2021. As the captioned appeals are inextricably interwoven or interlinked, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26.12.2019, u/s 271AAC of the Act, dated 06.01.2022 and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, dated 03.09.2021. As the captioned appeals are inextricably interwoven or interlinked, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take

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

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

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.

51,210/-. The return was accompanied by audit report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD, as the accounts of the assessee were audited under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The return of income was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, and an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 30.05.2024 was issued. While processing

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1-(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. VPR MINING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly\nallowed

condone the delay of 51\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to\nadjudicate the appeal as under.\n6.\nBriefly stated facts of the case are that, the\nassessee company is engaged in the business of mining /\nexcavation of coal, removal of over burden and execution of\n\nother related works. The company is also engaged

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. M/S. The Andhra Circle-2(2), Pradesh Mineral Hyderabad. Development Corporation Limited, Vijayawada – 521137. Pan: Aaact 7391 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam Revenue By Smt. Anjala Sahu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2021 Order

condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of mining, filed his return of income for the relevant AY on 31/3/2016. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny

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

KANCHERLA MEDICAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee dismissed

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

51,930/-. Assessment was complete by order dated 26/12/2019 at the returned income. Subsequently, on a perusal of record, the learned PCIT found that during the year under consideration, the assessee executed a business transfer agreement dated 18/05/2016 with Mr. Ravindranath GE Medical Associates Pvt. Ltd., and received consideration of Rs. 20 crores, but the learned Assessing Officer failed

BALAJI FINANCE,GAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

delay of 89 days in\nfiling the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for\nadjudication on merits.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\na) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned CIT A is\nerroneous and bad in law.\nb) On the facts and in the circumstances

SATISH NAGESH KULKARNI,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1025/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satish Nagesh Kulkarni, Vs. Dcit, Secunderabad. Circle-10(1), Pan: Begpk9791B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 29/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out, as under: “Findings and Decision 4. The facts of the case as per record are that the Assessee-Individual filed return of income

SANGEETA AKKARAJU CHANDRASEKHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit In Support Of The Condonation Petition, Wherein She Has Mentioned The Reasons For The Delay & Submitted That The Delay Occurred Due To Factors Beyond Her Control, With No Deliberate Intention To Defer The Filing Of The Appeal. On The Other Hand, The Learned Senior A.R. For The Revenue, Shri Mathivanan, S.A. Did Not Strongly Oppose The Condonation Of Delay Petition Filed By The Assessee.

condone the delay of 25 days 3 Sangeeta Akkaraju Chandrasekhar in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, in this case, information has been flagged in the Actionable Information Monitoring System. On verification, it is found that, the assessee has not filed any return of income

CHILLAKURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO V 529,PELLAKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1522/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Chillakuru Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Ward-1, Gudur. Cooperative Society Vs. Pin – 524 101. Limited No.529, State Of Andhra Pellakur. Pradesh. Pin – 524 129. Tirupati. Pan Aabac1880A (Appellant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

section 80AC are applicable from AY 2018-19 only. 5.7. In view of above facts and discussions, it is clear that denial of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act to assessee in view of non-filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act is fully justified and correct. Therefore, the decision