DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the petition filed by the assessee submitted that the learned PCIT has issued show cause notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act [in short “the Act”] on 29.03.2021 and the said show cause notice has been issued

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the petition filed by the assessee submitted that the learned PCIT has issued show cause notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act [in short “the Act”] on 29.03.2021 and the said show cause notice has been issued

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

section as 139(1), therefore, erred in assuming\nthe return of income is not u/s 139(1) of the IT Act.\n6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify\nthe above grounds of 6 appeal either before or at the\ntime of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered\nnecessary.”\n\n3.\nAt the outset, Shri

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 868 days, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- [Rs. Ten Thousand Only] to be paid to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, within a period of one month from the date of this order. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the appeal : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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).

79,25,704/- during the financial year 2015-16, for which TDS was deducted under Section 194IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was further noticed that, the assessee had not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, and in the absence of return of income, the source of investment towards purchase of the property

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).

79,25,704/- during the financial year 2015-16, for which TDS was deducted under Section 194IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was further noticed that, the assessee had not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, and in the absence of return of income, the source of investment towards purchase of the property

SUNSHINE GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 61/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Sunshine Granites Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Karimnagar Central Circle-1(2), [Pan No. Aaocs6148Q] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध / Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध / Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 13/02/2024

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

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

MURALI MOHAN VISWANADHUNI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condone the delay of 32 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and to admit the appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not raising any objection on the delay in presenting the appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal as required as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Mela Ram & sons

GOPAL REDDY GATTU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in tractors under the name and style of “Balaji Automotives” on wholesale and retail trade. The assessee filed return of income

VIDYUT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1878/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vidyut Employees Co- The Dcit, Operative Housing Vs. Circle-6(1), Society, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pin – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaaav5182H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

delay of 9 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned for the reasons that shall be submitted at the time of hearing since the issue under appeal involves substantial questions of law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on legal/technical grounds, the order passed u/s. 148A

FINECAB WIRES & CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.614/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Finecab Wires & Cables Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan:Aaacf4141Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025

79,340/-, opting for concessional tax rate under section 115BAA of the Act. However, while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act on 18.12.2021, the Centralized Processing Centre (“CPC”) denied ITA No.614/Hyd/2025 3 the benefit of concessional tax rate under section 115BAA on the ground that the assessee had not filed Form 10-IC electronically within