STAR ORGANIC FOODS INC,NELLORE vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the delay in filing of the 5 ITA.No.715/Hyd./2025 appeal should not be condoned. The learned DR further submitted that, the assessee is a non-complaint to all proceedings, which is evident from the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) where the assessee had not filed

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore

MANDADI VIJAYA LAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

delay in filing the appeal was unsubstantiated, thus\ndeclined to condone the same and dismissed the appeal on the said\nground. However, the CIT(A) also upheld the addition made by the AO\nunder Section 69A

KOLAPARTHY SUVARNA LAKSHMI,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nellore. Central Circle – 1, Nellore. Pan : Agupk4977A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

delay is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business and income from other sources. Assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 22.12.2018 admitting total income of Rs.47,91,890/-. The return of income

ARCOT AFSAR BEGUM,TADIPATRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

condoned the delay of 95 days, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive an adequate opportunity to be heard before the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 69A

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

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

sections": [ "147", "142(1)", "69A", "249(3)", "253(5)", "144", "1961" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

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

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

DANDEBOINA RAMESH,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-(1), WARANGAL

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

condone the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).\n8. We also find that the assessment in the present case was completed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act, and therefore the issue relating to the addition made under section 69A

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

KOVIDA DESIGNS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

Section 69A. The Assessing Officer (AO) also estimated turnover and profit, which the assessee argued already included these deposits, leading to double taxation.", "held": "The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned