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

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

VASAVI CLUB,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days, i.e., on or before 20.05.2021. However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 810 days. 5.2 The appellant sought condonation of delay citing reasons mentioned in Sl. No.15 of Form No.35. Before adjudicating the merits of the condonation application, the exclusion

D PEDA REDDAIAH ,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PRODDUTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri D. Pedda Reddaiah Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop:Sri Lakshmi Ward-1 Proddatur Venkateswara Wines, Kadapa Distt. Pan:Agipd1836F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2020 Order This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y 2010-11 Filed Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-Kurnool, Dated 4.3.2015. 2. At The Outset It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 1422 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating As Under: “1. I, D. Peda Reddaiah, S/O D.Subbarayudu, Aged About 47 Years, Prop. Of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines, Housed At 11/231, Badvel Road, Mydukur Village, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, Do Solemnly Affirm & State As Under: 2. I Am An Illiterate & Not Well Conversant With The Statutory Provisions & I Carried On Business In Wines For Two Years At Mydkur Village. I Don'T Have Any Formal Education. 3. I Have Carried On Wines Business Under The Name & Style Of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines For About Two Page 1 Of 11

2) and 142(1) on 12.01.2012, 6.02.2012, 4.5.2012, 31.07.2012, 21.8.2012, 10.09.2012, 22.10.2012. The assessee’s representative had appeared only on 29.09.2012 but did not furnish any information called for by the AO and it was in these circumstances, that the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 by estimating the income from wine business and also by disallowing

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

delay of 413 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and the same is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal: 1. “The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax- (Appeals)-11 ("the Ld.CIT(A)") without mentioning a valid computer generated Document Identification Number ('DIN') on the date of passing order

LOVEEN BABU VUPPALA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

90, Section 90A and Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7. In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form-67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same with delay and that too due to Covid out break

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

2. The learned Pr. Commissioner erred in assuming that return of income was not filed on 17.10.2016. 3. The learned Pr. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the verification of the return of income was made on 17.10.2016 itself, whereas, the 3 acknowledgment received on 18.10.2016 at 01.04 (AM) and should have further appreciated that the delay in receipt

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

2. The learned Pr. Commissioner erred in assuming that return of income was not filed on 17.10.2016. 3. The learned Pr. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the verification of the return of income was made on 17.10.2016 itself, whereas, the 3 acknowledgment received on 18.10.2016 at 01.04 (AM) and should have further appreciated that the delay in receipt

TRENDSET SUMANJALI WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , 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.935/Hyd/2025 [U/Sec.12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961] Trendset Sumanjali The Commissioner Of Welfare Association, Income Tax (Exemptions), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaiat3303J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

2. There is a delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the Affidavit of the General Secretary of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E) was not served

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

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