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

65 years. He was\nsuffering with illness. The Chartered Accountant was not in a position to attend\nthe office regularly and there was a setback in the office work. The penalty\norder loaded in the income tax portal was not viewed by his office staff and\ntherefore, it escaped attention of the auditor. Subsequently, on resumption of\nnormal office work

SRI KRISHNA JEWELLERY MART,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2013-14 M/S. Sri Krishna Jewellery Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Mart, Income Tax, Hyderabad – 500 012 (Ts). Circle-7(1), Pan: Aajfs 6312 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/09/2021 Order

65 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Ld. AR had filed a letter dated 05/07/2021 seeking condonation of delay wherein the reasons for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit was explained. For reference, the relevant portion from the aforesaid letter is extracted herein below: - “…….. Th due date for filing the appeals

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

SRI SAI ENTERPRISES,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURNOOL

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

Bench: the CIT(A), the impugned order so passed by the CIT(A) was not in the knowledge of the assessee till the assessee received the copy of the said order. The Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee immediately approached another Counsel for the legal remedy against the impugned order and in that process, there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The Ld.AR has submitted that since the Counsel authorized by the assessee to represent before the CIT(A) has not responded to the notices issued by

delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the CIT(A) in confirming the AO's order of making addition U/s. 69A as unexplained cash credits of Rs. 44,54,000/- without going into the facts of the case which is available even

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was registered under section 12A of the Act since 1980 and had been availing exemption under section 11 of the Act regularly. Although the original registration certificate could not be traced, the assessee placed reliance

GANGAMAGROTECH,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HINDUPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee 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 is a Firm and had not filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2013-2014. As per the Insight portal of the Department, a search and seizure operation

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

65,681/- under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and Rs. 4,36,82,093/- under Section 10(23A) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, and the learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Sections

QADEER AHMED MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

65,000/- and stated that, no expenditure was incurred towards agricultural activities, thereby treating the entire amount as net agricultural income. The A.O. noted that, although the assessee furnished landholding 3 Qadeer Ahmed Mohammed details and explained that, the agricultural land was inadvertently reported as 1 acre instead of 102.08 acres due to a clerical error, no documentary evidence regarding

NICHINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY NICHINO CHEMICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NOW MERGED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.366/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nichino India Private Dcit / Acit Limited (Formerly Nichino Vs. Circle-5(1) Chemical India Private Hyderabad Limited, Now Merged) Hyderabad [Pan : Aaecn5394B] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Ms.Suvibha Nolkha, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By : Shri D.Praveen, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/09/2024

65,54,308/-. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny and an order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) and 144B of the Act was passed on 09/11/2023, determining the loss at Rs.85,01,308/-. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order dated 06/12/2023 under section

SUDHAKAR AKUTOTA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1068/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Sudhakar Akutota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Abapa0044M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sudhakar Akutota (“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 05.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 296 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorised

condone the delay of 296 days in filing the appeal. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : --Space left intentionally-- ITA No.1068/Hyd/2025 5 8. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who did not file any return of income for assessment year

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

RSVCPL-ALAM (JV),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 144B of the Act on 12.05.2021, determining total income at Rs.82,96,138/-; after making addition of Rs. 65,62,778/- on account of Net Profit rate. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 191 days. However the Ld. CIT(A) ITA No.407/Hyd/2024

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

condoned and the appeal is not admitted. Elite Infraprojects Private Ltd. 6.4 It is noteworthy that five other appeals for various AYs were also filed online with a delay of 3 to 7 years without any reasonable explanation being offered for the same. The appellant has also failed to comply with various notices issued