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

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

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

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. ITA Nos. 1139 & 1140/Hyd/2017 and ITA Nos. 215 & 216/Hyd/2017 by the assessee and revenue, for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively. 4. These are cross appeals, directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 30/08/2016. ITA No. 1139/Hyd/2017. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. ITA Nos. 1139 & 1140/Hyd/2017 and ITA Nos. 215 & 216/Hyd/2017 by the assessee and revenue, for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively. 4. These are cross appeals, directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 30/08/2016. ITA No. 1139/Hyd/2017. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. ITA Nos. 1139 & 1140/Hyd/2017 and ITA Nos. 215 & 216/Hyd/2017 by the assessee and revenue, for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively. 4. These are cross appeals, directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 30/08/2016. ITA No. 1139/Hyd/2017. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. ITA Nos. 1139 & 1140/Hyd/2017 and ITA Nos. 215 & 216/Hyd/2017 by the assessee and revenue, for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively. 4. These are cross appeals, directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 30/08/2016. ITA No. 1139/Hyd/2017. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. ITA Nos. 1139 & 1140/Hyd/2017 and ITA Nos. 215 & 216/Hyd/2017 by the assessee and revenue, for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively. 4. These are cross appeals, directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 30/08/2016. ITA No. 1139/Hyd/2017. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. ITA Nos. 1139 & 1140/Hyd/2017 and ITA Nos. 215 & 216/Hyd/2017 by the assessee and revenue, for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively. 4. These are cross appeals, directed against a common order of CIT(A) – 11, Hyderabad, dated 30/08/2016. ITA No. 1139/Hyd/2017. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

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

BABUGARI KAREEM BASHA,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are dismissed mutatis mutandis for both the A

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

investment made to the tune of Rs.1,10,69,622/- and hence, treated the entire amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the A.O., the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the delay and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, ex-parte

BANDREDDY BANDLA REDDY,PULIVENDULA vs. ITO., WARD-1, KADAPA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.506/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Bandreddy Bandla The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Pulivendula. Ward-1, Pin – 516 390. Vs. Kadapa – 516 390. Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan Apzpb2735D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ms S Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order

delay. The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have verified the said fact by comparing the PAN data from ITBA website and the impugned assessment order before rejecting the condonation petition. 4. The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed of the same on merits since the entire assessment proceedings were bad and not sustainable

SEVEN ENERGIES ODISHA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1518/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Seven Energies Odisha Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aatcs5759E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 07/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 18/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee

unexplained investment. The AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 18/12/2018, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.4,24,92,650/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee company aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

investment and not to set off the current year loss against such addition against the existing express provisions of the Income Tax, 1961. 2. Your appellant submits that the ld.CIT(A) passed directions against the existing provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by reference to the provisions of section 115BBE which was not on statute for the relevant assessment

ELUMALAI SUMATHI,BAPATLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1165/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Elumalai Sumathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Bapatla Ward-1 [Pan :Abipe4083C] Ongole (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri U.Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 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 09.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.36,60,000 As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act After Having Admitted The Additional Evidence Filed By The Assessee Under Rule 46A. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act after having admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. 2. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. This appeal filed by the Assessee is time barred by 7 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay

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

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred