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

SLS DEVELOPERS,RANGA REDDY vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed in limine

unexplained\ndelay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be\nconsidered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must\nalso take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide\nreasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay\ncould easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal\ncare and caution. The statutory provisions

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

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

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

investment made to the tune of Rs.1,10,69,622/- and\nhence, treated the entire amount as unexplained money u/s 69A\nof the Act.\n3.\nAggrieved by the order passed by the A.O., the assessee filed\nan appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the delay and the Ld.CIT(A)\ndismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, ex-parte

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

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as under. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and working as Sr. Foreman (Civil Contracts) in Facilities Management Department with M/s. Qatar Energy and filed letter dated 25.08.2022 from

VENKAT REDDY BEERAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021 on 31.05.2021 declaring total income of Rs.NIL with loss of Rs.30,20,347/-. The case

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).

unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an appeal with a delay of 332 days and explained the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal, as per which, the assessee

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).

unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an appeal with a delay of 332 days and explained the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal, as per which, the assessee

G K CONSTRUCTIONS.CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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.1608/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 G K Constructions Co. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. Vs. Ward-8(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aapfg7527F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

condonation of delay, as the delay was caused by genuine and Bonafide reasons, which are clearly explained before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to not to have dismissed the appeal, after the Appellant had made detailed submissions citing relevant judicial precedents, and should have considered the submissions of the Appellant