DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

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

delay in filing Form 10B, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted condonation and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the exemption claim. Regarding the penalty under Section 271D, the Tribunal found it unsustainable due to the absence of a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and the initiation of penalty proceedings after the period of limitation.", "result": "Allowed

MALIREDDI SRINATH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HDYERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

56,572/- by treating the entire deposits including cash deposits of Rs.61,21,519/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal on 22.07.2025 against the assessment order dated 01.12.2023 with a delay

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

56,18,636/-.\n\n6. On further appeal, the CIT(A) vide his order dated 15.09.2020\nscaled down the quantum addition made by the A.O to Rs.\n32,12,480/- and thus, partly allowed the appeal.\n\n7. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order U/s.270A of the Act, dated\n23.03.2022 imposed a penalty of Rs.7,74,504/- U/s.270A

BETHANY MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.2012/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Bethany Mennonite The Income Tax Officer, Brethren Church, Ward-1, Vs. Mahabubnagar - 509301. Mahabubnagar. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aacab3321J (Applicant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condoning the delay in para nos.6.2 to 7 of the impugned order. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in light of the reasons explained by the assessee for delay of 24 5 ITA.No.2012/Hyd./2025 days in filing the appeal in the petition filed along with the affidavit

NAFEES SULTANA,HYEDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD.

Bench: Us:

56,128/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Ostensibly, as the appeal filed by the assessee involved a delay of over 7 months, the CIT(A) declined to condone the same. 4. However, the CIT(A), after declining to condone the delay involved in the appeal proceeded and disposed of the same

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

delay in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. Ground of appeal No.1 by the revenue reads as under:- 1. “Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act without appreciating that the method adopted for determination

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., 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

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

LATE RAJESHAM RAGI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Vs. Pin – 505 001. Telangana. Karimnagar. Pan Aaxpr4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Rv Nageshwar Sharma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law in as much the notice initiating the proceedings were issued on a wrong person. The appellant had raised

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

56,900/- interalia making an addition of Rs.22,13,080/- towards unexplained cost of construction of building by invoking the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Aggrieved with the same, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before

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