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

57: “As stated in the appeal memo the appeal has been instituted as soon as it has come to the knowledge of the appellant. The appellant could not have filed the appeal in respect of which he is not aware of. Hence, the delay has happened due to reasonable cause. This is without prejudice to the position that there

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

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

LAKSHMI SHANKAR GUMUDAVELLI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda

delay of ‘10’ days in filing of this appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed a condonation application. After considering the contents of the condonation 2 Lakshmi Shankar Gumudavelli application and after hearing the ld. DR , the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is the Director

LAKSHMI SHANKAR GUMUDAVELLI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda

delay of ‘10’ days in filing of this appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed a condonation application. After considering the contents of the condonation 2 Lakshmi Shankar Gumudavelli application and after hearing the ld. DR , the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is the Director

VEERABALLI NAGA BASI REDDY,KADAPA vs. ITO., WARD - 1, KADAPA.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.451/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 1, Kadapa. Kadapa. Pan: Aszpr1589G (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.12.2024

section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Subsequently, based on the information available in ITBA portal, that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.22,57,800/- in bank account during demonetization period, that the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income of ITA No.451/Hyd/2025 2 the had escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice

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

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

HITEC CYBERSPAZIO LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay in filing of appeal even though the appellant firm has valid and sufficient reasons for occurrence of such delay. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have accorded a further opportunity of being heard before rejecting such plea in view of principles of natural Justice. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal

KRANTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHADRACHALLAM vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

condone such delay and therefore, upheld the disallowance of Rs.10,72,66,472/- and dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri DLS Narasimha Rao, CA, submitted that, the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income

BHAGINI MANDAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

57,405/-. The case of the assessee was processed by the Centralised Processing Centre (“CPC”) under ITA No.397/Hyd/2025 4 section 143(1) of the Act on 21.05.2019, denying the deduction claimed under section 11 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had not furnished any details of registration under section 12A of the Act in the return

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay, the fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 has held that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15 March, 2020 till 02 October, 2021 shall be excluded

SRICHARAN DEVINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

delay of 29 days in filing each\nof the three appeals is condoned, and all the appeals are admitted for\nadjudication on merits.\nITA No. 1559/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2023-24 :\n5.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed\nher return of income for the Assessment Year 2023–24 on 31.07.2023,\ndeclaring

SYED MOHAMMED ASAD ULLAH HUSSAINI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.268/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Syed Mohammed Asad Vs. Acit, Ullah Hussaini, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abfph0148G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, Dated 14.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, ”Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28.03.2022, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(Appeals) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act and assessed the total 6 Syed Mohammed Asad Ullah Hussaini vs ACIT income of the assessee at Rs. 63,57,100/-, i.e., after making the aforementioned additions, viz. (i). addition of cash loan (1/5th share) advanced to Shri G. Shyam Prasad Reddy: Rs. 35 lakhs; and (ii). addition

VUPPALA RAJ KUMAR, SIDDIPET,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIDDIPET, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10

57 years resident of No.7-3-60, Old Gunj, Siddipet, do solemnly affirm and state as under:- Page 1 of 7 ITA No 1207 of 2016 Vuppala Raj Kumar Siddipet The assessee is an individual. The assessee is carrying on business in Kirana & General items. For the asst. year 2009- 10 the assessee filed return of income on 08.09.2010 declaring total income