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

section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

condonation of delay\nbefore the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled\nproposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12\nof the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot\nbe assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred\nby the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case

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

In the result, three appeals i

condonation of delay\nbefore the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled\nproposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12\nof the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot\nbe assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred\nby the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case

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

condonation of delay\nbefore the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled\nproposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12\nof the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot\nbe assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred\nby the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case

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

DINESH DAGA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

68,184/ on the ground that the sale consideration received on sale of penny stock scrip of VMS Industries Liinited represents income from other sources. While coming to such conclusion, the Assessing officer did not consider the fact that the trading done was only speculation and the actual amount received was only Rs.43,832/- and that the entire sale consideration

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee, assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 10.01.2021 admitting total income of Rs. 37,38,670/-. On credible information that assessee and one Chetan Agarwal are regularly conducting dabba trading

NIRAJITA MITRA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 270AA of the Act, it is clear that nowhere it is mentioned that in case the assessee filed Form 68 after a period of 30 days, then the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) was not empowered to condone the delay

SHREEJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shreeji Foods Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aalcs2695H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

condonation of delay cannot be granted in this case. 6.3 In view of the overall discussion, the appeal is dismissed being not maintainable.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld.AR submitted that Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition under section 68

VISHAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vishal Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aympj0559M. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 30.08.2019 admitting total income of Rs.13,51,680/-. The Investigating Team found cash of Rs.11,83,000/- in possession of assessee

METAL INDUSTRIES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Metal Industries, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-44, Industrial Estate, Ward – 6(3), Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Telangana. Pan : Aawfm8494Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2024

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4 3.1 Further, in the absence of any information with respect unsecured loan credits for the closing balances mentioned at Rs.22,23,935/- and Rs.53,50,000/- as on 31.03.2017, totaling to Rs.85,34,105/- was also considered by the Assessing Officer for addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, Assessing

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ADHITHI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

condone the delay of nine days and\nadmit the appeal of the Revenue for adjudication.\n3.\nThe appeal was fixed for hearing for the first time on\n28.07.2025. On the said date, none appeared on behalf of the\nassessee, and no adjournment petition was filed. The matter was\nagain listed on 04.12.2025, yet on this date also, there

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,78,721/-\nresulting in an addition of Rs.48,43,936/-.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nchallenging the consequential assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s.263 dated 29.03.2006.\n5.\nWhile both the above-mentioned appeals were pending before the Ld.\nCIT(A), the Ld. AO reopened

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,78,721/-\nresulting in an addition of Rs.48,43,936/-.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee also filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nchallenging the consequential assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 29.03.2006.\n5. While both the above-mentioned appeals were pending before the Ld.\nCIT(A), the Ld. AO reopened