SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 154 of the Act, said application was required to be filed within a period of 4 years from the date of passing of the order. However, for the reasons best known to the assessee, the said application was not filed before the Assessing Officer within time. As the case may be the said application remained pending with

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 154 of the Act, said application was required to be filed within a period of 4 years from the date of passing of the order. However, for the reasons best known to the assessee, the said application was not filed before the Assessing Officer within time. As the case may be the said application remained pending with

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 154 of the Act, said application was required to be filed within a period of 4 years from the date of passing of the order. However, for the reasons best known to the assessee, the said application was not filed before the Assessing Officer within time. As the case may be the said application remained pending with

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 154 of the Act, said application was required to be filed within a period of 4 years from the date of passing of the order. However, for the reasons best known to the assessee, the said application was not filed before the Assessing Officer within time. As the case may be the said application remained pending with

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section 154 of the Act, said application was required to be filed within a period of 4 years from the date of passing of the order. However, for the reasons best known to the assessee, the said application was not filed before the Assessing Officer within time. As the case may be the said application remained pending with

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

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

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

section 154 of the Act, said application was required to be filed within a period of 4 years from the date of passing of the order. However, for the reasons best known to the assessee, the said application was not filed before the Assessing Officer within time. As the case may be the said application remained pending with

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal. Therefore, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. Coming to the original grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of unexplained 12 investment in jewellery, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that during the course of search

N N DETONATORS PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Through Its Director, Shri A. Vijay Kumar, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Stating That, An Appellate Order Dated 18.06.2024 Was Passed In Its Case For A.Y. 2017-18 Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 57,00,000/-. The Assessee Submitted That, The Company Did Not Receive Any Intimation Regarding Passing Of The Appellate Order Either Through Email Or Sms, Which, According To The Assessee, Was Due To Technical Issues. Subsequently, The Assessee Came To Know About The Appellate Order Only After The A.O. Passed A Consequential Order Dated 12.11.2024 Giving Effect To The Appellate Order.

condone the delay of 83 days in 4 N N Detonators Pvt. Ltd. filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 23.03.2018, declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and during

MALLESHWARI NARAMULLA,RANGA REDDY vs. ITO., WARD-2(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.1195/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Malleshwari Vs. Income Tax Officer Naramulla Ward 2(1) Ranga Reddy Hyderabad Pan:Aulpn5122B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Snsr Chinmai & S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have decided the grounds of appeal agitated before him. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have seen that Assessing Officer Ward-11(1), Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to issue notice

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

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

83 of the Second Schedule was issued to the assessee by the TRO-1/ Hyderabod, on 25.05.2017. The assessee responded to the summons vide letter dated: 08.6.2017 and submitted details requisitioned. The assessee cannot claim ignorance of the effect of the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) as the reason 4 I.T.A. No. 1901Hyd/17 and others Concord Drugs

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

83 of the Second Schedule was issued to the assessee by the TRO-1/ Hyderabod, on 25.05.2017. The assessee responded to the summons vide letter dated: 08.6.2017 and submitted details requisitioned. The assessee cannot claim ignorance of the effect of the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) as the reason 4 I.T.A. No. 1901Hyd/17 and others Concord Drugs

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

83 of the Second Schedule was issued to the assessee by the TRO-1/ Hyderabod, on 25.05.2017. The assessee responded to the summons vide letter dated: 08.6.2017 and submitted details requisitioned. The assessee cannot claim ignorance of the effect of the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) as the reason 4 I.T.A. No. 1901Hyd/17 and others Concord Drugs

CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

83 of the Second Schedule was issued to the assessee by the TRO-1/ Hyderabod, on 25.05.2017. The assessee responded to the summons vide letter dated: 08.6.2017 and submitted details requisitioned. The assessee cannot claim ignorance of the effect of the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) as the reason 4 I.T.A. No. 1901Hyd/17 and others Concord Drugs

THE ICFAI SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 The Icfai Society, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. (Exemptions), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaajt0214B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Revenue By: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2024 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 10(23C) does not cover clause (vi) i.e. educational institution. The appellant being approved as a solely educational institution should not have been treated as a GPU category institution even if commercialization is alleged. 5. That the order of the AO and the CIT(A) is bad in law and facts in arbitrarily applying the ratio of various cases

ANJUMAN E KHADIMUL MUSLIMEEN REFAH-E AAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-EXEMPTION, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 11 & 12 which were a separate code by itself and the delay caused was only a curable defect and the learned JCIT ought to have given an opportunity to the Appellant to condone the delay and ought to have followed the spirit of the circular referred to by the learned JCIT governing assessment years

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