Search: condonation of delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 604/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 605/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 606/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 603/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 239/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

80-IB (10) of the Act would be hit by sub-section (5) of section 80A of the act. 6. We are conscious that in absence of the provision contained in section 80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

condoning the delay. and the remaining ground nos.4 to 16 for discussion can be summarized as follows: 1) Ground 4: Disallowance of Rs.24,94,00,000 under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2) Grounds 5 to 7: Disallowance of Rs.21,08,45,001 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3) Grounds 8 and 9: Payments made

CHILLAKURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO V 529,PELLAKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1522/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1522/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Chillakuru Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Ward-1, Gudur. Cooperative Society Vs. Pin – 524 101. Limited No.529, State Of Andhra Pellakur. Pradesh. Pin – 524 129. Tirupati. Pan Aabac1880A (Appellant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. AR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 80ASection 80P

80-IE, unless the retum of income by the assessee is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act. However, this burden was not cast upon the assessee claiming deduction under other similar provisions contained in Chapter 10 ITA.No.1522/Hyd./2025 VIA of the Income-tax Act under

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

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

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

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

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

MAHATHI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 802/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 263 of 2 Mahati Engineering Industries Private Limited Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and pertains to the assessment year 2018-19. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Principal

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-AR

Section 143(1)Section 80I

condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarvotham Care, having income from two units, one being a solar power generation unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA

FEDERATION OF AP COOPERATIVE URBAN BANKS AND CREDIT SOCIETIES LIMITED HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. DR

condone the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order issued u/s 143(1) of the Act is contrary to the facts and also to the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The disallowance of deduction

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

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 359/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

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

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 1415/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

MALEPATI SIVASHANKARREDDY,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, NANDYAL

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

ITA 47/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.47/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Malepati Sivashankar Vs. Income Tax Officer Reddy, Ward – 1 Kurnool Nandyal Pan:Dxtps2891J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, DR

Section 144

80 days which is considered by the learned CIT (A) as per para 5 of the impugned order reproduced above. Therefore, it is apparent from the impugned order that the learned CIT (A) has not considered the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the cause of delay while declining the condonation of delay which manifest that the impugned order

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 1529/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

80,20,933/- based on an exparte order passed under section 148 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 14/03/2022. 14. On appeal, the CIT(A) in the absence of the prosecution of the appeal before him had summarily approved the addition of Rs.80,20,933/- and upheld the best judgment assessment framed by the AO under section

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 1501/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

80,20,933/- based on an exparte order passed under section 148 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 14/03/2022. 14. On appeal, the CIT(A) in the absence of the prosecution of the appeal before him had summarily approved the addition of Rs.80,20,933/- and upheld the best judgment assessment framed by the AO under section

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 1514/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

80,20,933/- based on an exparte order passed under section 148 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 14/03/2022. 14. On appeal, the CIT(A) in the absence of the prosecution of the appeal before him had summarily approved the addition of Rs.80,20,933/- and upheld the best judgment assessment framed by the AO under section