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

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been duly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account which is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed. 12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been duly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account which is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed. 12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been duly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account which is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed. 12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

delay of 413 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and the same is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal: 1. “The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax- (Appeals)-11 ("the Ld.CIT(A)") without mentioning a valid computer generated Document Identification Number ('DIN') on the date of passing order

SATYA PRAKASH REDDY AEDUDODLA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2010-11 Satya Prakash Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aedudodla, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Acppr 9805 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business filed his return of income on 20/08/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 41,370/-. Initially the return was processed

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the respective delays involved in the captioned appeals filed by the assessee for the aforementioned years, viz., (i) AY: 2017-18 (54 days); (ii) AY: 2018-19 (54 days); and (iii) AY: 2019-20 (56 days). Accordingly, our order passed while disposing of the appeal in the case of the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the respective delays involved in the captioned appeals filed by the assessee for the aforementioned years, viz., (i) AY: 2017-18 (54 days); (ii) AY: 2018-19 (54 days); and (iii) AY: 2019-20 (56 days). Accordingly, our order passed while disposing of the appeal in the case of the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the respective delays involved in the captioned appeals filed by the assessee for the aforementioned years, viz., (i) AY: 2017-18 (54 days); (ii) AY: 2018-19 (54 days); and (iii) AY: 2019-20 (56 days). Accordingly, our order passed while disposing of the appeal in the case of the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the respective delays involved in the captioned appeals filed by the assessee for the aforementioned years, viz., (i) AY: 2017-18 (54 days); (ii) AY: 2018-19 (54 days); and (iii) AY: 2019-20 (56 days). Accordingly, our order passed while disposing of the appeal in the case of the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the respective delays involved in the captioned appeals filed by the assessee for the aforementioned years, viz., (i) AY: 2017-18 (54 days); (ii) AY: 2018-19 (54 days); and (iii) AY: 2019-20 (56 days). Accordingly, our order passed while disposing of the appeal in the case of the assessee company

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the respective delays involved in the captioned appeals filed by the assessee for the aforementioned years, viz., (i) AY: 2017-18 (54 days); (ii) AY: 2018-19 (54 days); and (iii) AY: 2019-20 (56 days). Accordingly, our order passed while disposing of the appeal in the case of the assessee company

JHANSI LAKSHMI RAMANADHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the 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.886/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ramanadham Ward 8 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpr3566K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.05.2024 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 292 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. Ar”) Submitted That The Assessee Is Page 1 Of 12

delay of 292 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 7 of 12 ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed her return of income

LANCO SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed and Stay Application filed by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

54,87,00/-. 4. Aggrieved with the above order the assessee filed letter seeking rectification u/s 154 of the Act on 7.8.2017 since there was no response from the TPO and AO, assessee filed further rectification petition u/s 154 on 27.03.2019 and 30.04.2019. 5. Aggrieved with the above 154 order dated 19.6.2018 assessee filed appeal before us raising following grounds

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

SRK INFRACON (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(3), HYDERABADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 263 of the Act. 6. At the outset, ld. AR had submitted that there is a delay of 988 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the same may kindly be condoned. In this regard, he filed the following written submissions made by the Director of the assessee company : “The assessee is in the business of development