PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED CHENNARAOPET,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

Bench: Us:

disallowing the assessee society's claim for deduction of interest 3 Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited received from advances, determined its income at Rs. 1,24,40,090/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who observed that though the appeal filed by the assessee society involved a delay of 388 days

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

3. The Ld.ClT (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of sec.56 (2) (viia) are not applicable to the transactions defined u/s.47(vi), even though the proviso to section 56(2)(viia) does not specify the transactions defined u/s.47(vi) as exception to section 56(2)(viiia) 4. The Ld.CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the shares purchased by the assessee

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the addition of Rs.11,44,51,818/- (supra) made by the\nAO, which, thereafter, had been sustained by the CIT(A), is vacated.\nThe Grounds of appeal Nos.3.1 to 3.4 are allowed in terms o...

3. ERRONEOUS\nADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT\n3.1\nThat on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of making\nadjustment of INR 114,451,818 towards processing fees under\nsection 145 of the Act.\n3.2\nThat on facts and in circumstances

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F was to be re-examined in light of restrictions imposed by authorities.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 54F of the Act", "Section 153A of the Act", "Section 253 of the Act", "Section 249 of the Income Tax Act", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act", "Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" ], "issues": "1. Whether

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "14A", "36(1)(va)", "2(24)(x)", "263", "143(3)", "142(1)", "139(1)", "43B", "10AA", "115JB", "249(4)(a)", "10(34)" ], "issues": "1. Whether disallowance

N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3

3), the AO shall subject to fulfillment of the conditions specified in sub section (1) and after expiry of the period of filing the appeal as per section 249(2), grant immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA, where, the proceedings for penalty u/s 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub section (9) of section

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused

GACM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), 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 – 2017-18 Gacm Technologies Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Hyderabad (Formerly Known As Stampede Capital Limited) Hyderabad Pan : Aaacb7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.Dr 05.09.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2024

disallowance u/s 14A shall not exceed the actual amount of expenditure incurred in earning Exempt Income. 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO/CIT(A) : 5.1. Erred in appreciating the fact that dividend earned is exempt income the hands of appellant. 6. The appellant may add, alter or modify any other point

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

249(3) of Act\nand ought to have contended the delay in filing the appeal and\nadjudicated the grounds on merit.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the\nbasis of merits, rather than dismissing the appeal without\nappreciating that the delay is due to reasons that are beyond the\ncontrol

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowance of INR 13,13,770 pertaining to leave encashment expenses claimed by the Appellant under section 43B of the Act 3.1 The learned AO has erred in not granting a deduction of INR 13,13,770/- /s.43B of the Act 3.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance

SKANDHANSHI INFRA PROJECTS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any\nspecific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to\nprovisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of\njurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction\nvs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

249 | | 387,000 | 26,511,692 |\n| 10th | 7,457,965 | 250,000 | 1,622,635 | 301,000 | 1,547,495 | 496,000 | | | 11,725,100 |\n| 11th | 3,524,072 | 271,920 | 1,721,200 | 2,322,092 | 2,051,085 | 250,000 | 312,515 | | 11,722,884 |\n| 12th

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 193/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Infor (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaacb6197Q] Circle-2(1), Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

3 of draft assessment order, it was mentioned that 20% of Rs. 1,36,00,85,339/-, the foreign remittances in the nature of FTS was proposed to be disallowed. Learned DRP took note of the financial statement at Note No. 30 and considered the figure Rs. 66,72,38,249/- at paragraph No. 2.70.9 but failed to comment

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

3) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 29.12.2010 for A.Y. 2008-09.\nThe assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following\ngrounds of appeal before us:\n“1. The order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as facts\nof the case

MANTRI COSMOS II OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.20 & 21/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) Mantri Cosmos Ii Owners Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Welfare Association Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeam1297J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates K Hari Prasad & K Karthik राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt.M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

3) of the Act and the appeal against the above intimation becomes infructuous. In our view, he should have stopped with the above findings and should not have proceeded to decide the issue on merits, because it is brought to his knowledge that the assessee has filed appeal against the regular assessment order. Therefore, he has travelled beyond the mandate