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 :

4. The Ld.CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the shares purchased by the assessee company for a price lower than the FMV of the shares, does not attract provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and accordingly deleting the addition of Rs.5, 14,80,879/-. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. The brief

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

4) of section 270A of the Act, the AO shall, within a period of three months from the end of the month, in which application under sub-section (1) is received, pass an order, accepting or rejecting such application. In the present case, although the AO has rejected the application filed by the assessee in the penalty order itself passed

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

disallowed the same.\n5. Ostensibly, the assessee during the course of the assessment\nproceedings came up with a new claim, wherein based on a revised\nstatement of computation of income that was filed with the A.O.\non 29.08.2010, it was claimed by him that as the agricultural land\nsituated at Village: Manchirevula was not a “capital asset” within\nthe meaning

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

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 10 ITA.No.650/Hyd./2023 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

4 thereof, it is seen that unsecured loans include FCCBs worth Rs. 19 Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited 101,72,00,000/-. Therefore, the above decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the case before us. In the case of Gati Ltd. (cited supra), this bench was considered the nature of the expenses incurred for issuance of FCCBs

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

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

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

4)(iv) in respect of profits derived from the solar power unit. The return of income was filed by the assessee within the extended due date of 15th March, 2022. The audit report in Form No.10CCB was required to be filed before one month from the last date of filing the return of income. Accordingly, the extended due date

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

249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution received by the assessee from the employees and deposited with the Government, after due date

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

249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution received by the assessee from the employees and deposited with the Government, after due date

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

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

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...

249/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee\ncompany was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS. Notice\nunder section 143(2), dated 09.08.2018, was issued to the assessee.\n3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was\nobserved by the A.O. that the assessee company had deposited cash\nin its bank accounts during the demonetization period, i.e.,\n09.11.2016

GAUTHAM KUMAR SUNKATA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.742/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Gautam Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Sunkata, Ward 4(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Cfwps7723F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

disallowed under the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under reporting of income were initiated on this issue separately. Page 2 of 4 ITA 742 of 2024 Gautam Kumar Sunkata 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB, which is due to reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of the appellant. 9. The assessee may add, alter or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB, which is due to reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of the appellant. 9. The assessee may add, alter or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time

ASHISH AGRAWAL,PUNE vs. ITO., WARD-12(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 1,94,384/- paid by the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Indian National. He is a salaried individual employed with Emerson Electric Company (India) Private Limited (‘Emerson India’) and was on an assignment to United States of America (USA) for the period 30th