JAGADESSHWAR RAO CHIDARA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 29/12/2017 determined his total income at Rs. 9,46,180/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunities on 07 occasions by the CIT(A), had neither participated in the appellate proceedings nor furnished

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. SREE RAYALASEEMA GALAXY PROJECTS PVT LTD , KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

77,971 under section 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and such appeal has been filed with a delay of 1159 days. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and as per the reasons

SREE RAYALASEEMA GALAXY PROJECTS PVT LTD., KURNOOL,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

77,971 under section 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and such appeal has been filed with a delay of 1159 days. The assessee explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and as per the reasons

MAISAMMA DEVATHA TEMPLE,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1, MAHABUBNAGAR

Bench: Us :

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 27.03.2022 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. The order by the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act dt. 03.09.2024 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent

SAMPATH REDDY VEM,WARANGAL. vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL.

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“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 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

condone the delay of 397 days, without appreciating the genuine and bonafide reasons beyond the appellant's control that led to the delay in filing the appeal. b) The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in ignoring that all statutory notices were served on the email ID of the appellant's previous Chartered Accountant, and due to which the appellant

SAMPATH REDDY VEM,WARANGAL. vs. ITO., WARD - 1, WARANGAL.

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“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 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

condone the delay of 397 days, without appreciating the genuine and bonafide reasons beyond the appellant's control that led to the delay in filing the appeal. b) The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in ignoring that all statutory notices were served on the email ID of the appellant's previous Chartered Accountant, and due to which the appellant

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

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

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

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

SYED MOHAMMED ASAD ULLAH HUSSAINI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.268/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Syed Mohammed Asad Vs. Acit, Ullah Hussaini, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abfph0148G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, Dated 14.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, ”Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28.03.2022, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(Appeals) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us.

77 of Annexure A/MAS/Loc169 /AB/KB/02 contained a declaration dated 12.06.2015 signed by Shri G. Shyam Prasad Reddy, wherein he had admitted receipt of a hand loan of Rs. 1.75 crores from five persons, including the assessee. As per the declaration, a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores was advanced in cash, and against this Shri. G. Shyam Prasad Reddy (supra

PURNA CHANDER RAGAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above observations

Bench: Us:

77,000/- when all the transactions are recorded in the books of account. 4. Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. 2. At the threshold, we may herein observe that the present appeal involves a delay of 33 days. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking

SYED OMER,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and pertain to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : 3 Syed Omer 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual had not filed his return of income for the A.Y.2018-19

CANDID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.82 & 86/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Candid Industries Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aaace4493Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2024

delay of 77 days in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA No.82/Hyd/2024- A.Y 2013-14 & ITA 86/Hyd/2024 – A.Y 2016-17 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: Page 2 of 8 ITA No 82 and 86 of 2024 Candid Industries Ltd 3. Facts of the case, in brief, the assessee company

CANDID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.82 & 86/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Candid Industries Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aaace4493Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2024

delay of 77 days in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA No.82/Hyd/2024- A.Y 2013-14 & ITA 86/Hyd/2024 – A.Y 2016-17 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: Page 2 of 8 ITA No 82 and 86 of 2024 Candid Industries Ltd 3. Facts of the case, in brief, the assessee company