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

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

SATYANARAYANA MURTHY KANCHARLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2122/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Murthy Kancharla Ward 12 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Alypk6305P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 8 ITA No 2122 of 2025 Satyanarayana Murthy Kancharla 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 8 ITA No 2122 of 2025 Satyanarayana Murthy Kancharla 6. The brief facts of the case

GEETHIKA ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

sections": [ "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "69C", "221(1)", "44AB" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficient cause for condonation

SURESH MADAMANCHI,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the 577-day delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present documentary evidence.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A", "69B", "69C

KCVR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.986/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Kcvr Infra Projects Private Vs. Asstt. Cit Limited Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeck2457N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C A M.V. Prasad राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Kcvr Infra Projects Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.03.2025 For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed Before Us With A Delay Of Three Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With A Copy Of Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. Ar”)

delay of three days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the decision of the Assessing

DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. M.R.V. PRASAD, HYD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s and assessee’s respective pleadings regarding the sole legal issue of validity of the re-opening herein taken recourse to by the Assessing Officer after recording reasons to believe that the latter’s taxable income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment, we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We make it clear that the file notings right from 05.10.2015 onwards indicate the assessee’s counsel name but nobody has represented him since 09.05.2018. These appeals had been fixed on 03.09.2021 wherein we had directed the department to serve the assessee afresh. The DCIT, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad has filed his correspondence dated

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We make it clear that the file notings right from 05.10.2015 onwards indicate the assessee’s counsel name but nobody has represented him since 09.05.2018. These appeals had been fixed on 03.09.2021 wherein we had directed the department to serve the assessee afresh. The DCIT, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad has filed his correspondence dated

ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We make it clear that the file notings right from 05.10.2015 onwards indicate the assessee’s counsel name but nobody has represented him since 09.05.2018. These appeals had been fixed on 03.09.2021 wherein we had directed the department to serve the assessee afresh. The DCIT, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad has filed his correspondence dated

RAMAGOPAL VARMA RAMARAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERENATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee arising from the assessment order passed u/sec

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /It(It)A No.507/Hyd/2025 & Ita.No.1302/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2015-2016 Ramgopal Varma The Income Tax Officer Ramaraju, Hyderabad. Vs. [Int.Taxn]-2, Hyderabad Pin – 500 060. Telangana. Pin - 500 004. Telangana. Pan Arppr7316E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: & Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condonation of delay wrongly relying on the AO's endorsement in the assessment order that no communication with regard to filing of objections before the Hon'ble DRP was intimated to the AO, which is factually not correct since the appellant-assessee filed objections in Form-35A before DRP on 26.02.2024 within due date and also intimated the AO through

KASIREDDY SASIKALAMMA,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD -1, GUDUR

Bench: Us:

Section 148 of the Act dated 4 Kasireddy Sasikalamma 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of income on 19.04.2021 declaring an income of Rs. 3,62,350/-. 3. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.36

QUARTZ INFRA AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. SHRI B. R. RAMESH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE16-(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.98/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Quartz Infra & Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-16(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacq1546N] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Pavan Kumar Chakrapani, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30 /07/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 27/08/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 27/02/2020 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Learned Cit(A)”)-4, Hyderabad In The Case Of M/S Quartz Infra & Engineering Private Ltd.(“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Assessee Preferred This Appeal, With A Delay Of 264 Days.

condone the delay, there is no denial of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of M.A.No. 21/2022 in M.A.No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10/01/2022 held that in cases, where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual

AJAZ FAROOQI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay of 3 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed