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

condonation of delay before the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled proposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12 of the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot be assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words, in case

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

condonation of delay before the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled proposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12 of the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot be assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words, in case

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

condonation of delay before the Pr. CIT. Further, it is also held as a settled proposition of law that even if the benefit of secs.11 and 12 of the Act is denied, the gross receipt of the assessee cannot be assessed to tax without allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards charitable purpose. In other words, in case

BABUGARI KAREEM BASHA,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are dismissed mutatis mutandis for both the A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and pertain to the assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from ITA 1448/H/2025

THE WARANGAL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,HANAMKONDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) The Warangal District Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Cooperative Central Bank Income Tax, Limited, Hanamkonda, Circle-3(1), Warangal. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabtt3137G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 11/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

69,950/-. 3. The assessee at the time of filing its original return of income did not file “Form No. 10-IF” required under Section 115BAD r.w Rule 21AH to exercise the option for taxation under Section 115BAD of the Act. The assessee thereafter filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2022, along with Form 10IF, claiming taxation under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay by following the decision of the ITAT in the case of 4 M/s. AKR Constructions Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No.572/Hyd/2015) dated 30/07/2015. Thereafter, CIT(A) proceeded to consider the assessee’s grounds on the merits of the addition made u/s 69 of the Act and granted partial relief to the assessee. Against the relief granted

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

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

69,984/- by making an addition of rs.5,40,000/- towards disallowance of expenditure claimed under the heads sundry expenses and other expenses. Thereafter, the PCIT revised the assessment order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act vide order dt.23.03.2015. Consequent to the said order, the Assessing Officer passed consequential order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The assessee has more or less raised common grounds for all the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds raised in ITA No.315/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The assessee has more or less raised common grounds for all the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds raised in ITA No.315/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The assessee has more or less raised common grounds for all the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds raised in ITA No.315/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case

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

BABUGARI KAREEM BASHA,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and pertain to the assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18. Since the grounds raised in these appeals are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from ITA 1448/H/2025

SHANKAR GOUD BALAGONI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the penalty is deleted

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi[Through Video Conferencing At Delhi] आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1211/H/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shankar Goud Balagoni, C/O P Murali & Co. Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad — 500082 ….. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No. Afcpa 0544 E Vs. Ito, Ward – 15(4), Hyderabad ….. "त् यथ"/Respondent

69,865/- as against the income of Rs.18,80,499/- shown by the assessee thereby making an addition of Rs.11,89,366/-. Since, assessee had failed to produce the books of accounts, vouchers and bills, AO I.T.A. No.1211/H/2019 :- 3 -: vide penalty order dated 08.07.2016 passed u/s 271A levied the penalty of Rs.25,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order

SEVEN ENERGIES ODISHA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1518/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Seven Energies Odisha Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aatcs5759E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 07/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 18/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, the Ld. AR has assailed the validity of the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 18/12/2018 for two fold reasons, viz., (i) that the AO had exceeded 9 Seven Energies Odisha Limited vs. ACIT

PRASANTH PUTTAMAREDDY,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an appeal with a delay of 332 days and explained the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal, as per which, the assessee

PRASANTH PUTTAMAREDDY,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an appeal with a delay of 332 days and explained the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal, as per which, the assessee

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