SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

condonation of delay is rejected, and Page 5 of 12 ITA No.1164 & 2287/Hyd/2025 Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1164/Hyd/2025 is dismissed on account of limitation. ITA No.2287/Hyd/2025: 8. The brief facts

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MUTTAM,KADAPA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

condonation of delay is rejected, and\nconsequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by\nlimitation.\n7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1164/Hyd/2025 is\ndismissed on account of limitation.\nITA No.2287/Hyd/2025:\n8. The brief facts of the case in the present appeal are that the assessee is\na religious trust, which

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –3(3), Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr5836P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.02.2025

condone the delay in the filing of the appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 01.01.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.39,84,93,420/-. A search and seizure operation

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 84 days and admitted the appeal\nfor adjudication on merits.\n17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\n1. The order of the learned CIT(A), on the aspects agitated in this\nappeal, is bad in law and without appreciation of the facts and\ncircumstances of the case in the right perspective

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL INDIA PROJECT OFFICE (FORMERLY PIRELLI CAVI SISTEMI S P A INDIA PROJECT OFFICE),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order dated 20.12.2006 under\nsection 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act was adjudicated separately by the Tribunal\nvide order dated 30.11.2015. In that order, the Tribunal directed the Assessing\nOfficer to delete the addition made in respect of offshore contract receipts;\nestimate the income at 10% of the onshore contract works / services receipts;\nand specifically directed not to consider

DANDEBOINA RAMESH,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-(1), WARANGAL

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

condoned the delay in filing appeal before him and considered the appeal on merits.\n3. The learned CIT A failed to appreciate that the impugned asst order has been done arbitrarily, Indiscreetly, making huge and high-pitched additions.\n4. The learned CITA ought to have appreciated the facts before him and given an opportunity to the assessee to represent

VINOD OJHA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2016-2017) Vinod Ojha, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad-500012. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 057. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahpo3171F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 117 days, subject to cost of Rs.2000/- [Rs. Two Thousand Only] to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. 5 ITA.No.1231/Hyd./2024 5. The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order passed by the A.O. under

ANANTHA PVC PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.317/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1, Kurnool. Anantapur. Pan:Aagca0936J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. & Shri P. Rosi Reddy, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The

delay of 147 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.317/Hyd/2025 5 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of PVC pipes. It filed its return of income

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. EMAAR HILLS TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the 4 ITA.No.425/Hyd./2023 Tribunal and admit the appeal of the Revenue for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee- company M/s. EMMAR Hills Township Private Limited [in short “EHTPL”] is engaged in the business of integrated township development, filed it’s return

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 04.03.2024 was assailed by the assessee firm before him. 16. As we have set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we refrain from adverting to the specific issues based on which the impugned addition has been assailed before us, which, thus

TOURS5 COM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 04.03.2024 was assailed by the assessee firm before him. 16. As we have set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we refrain from adverting to the specific issues based on which the impugned addition has been assailed before us, which, thus

SHAIK AFSAR HUSSAIN,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 8 Shaik Afsar Hussain 5. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in treating

RAVINDER RAO TAKKALLAPELLY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay was not intentional and requested for condonation of the same. ITA No.477/Hyd/2025 4 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the request for remand. He submitted that the assessee had participated in the reassessment

GOPAL REDDY GATTU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD

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

reassessment under Section 263 directing assessing officer make addition of Rs. 39,54,091/- and indirect income of Rs. 1,02,21,481/- credited into the Profit & Loss account is set a side to the Assessing officer. 3 Gopal Reddy Gattu 8. The appellant to raise any additional grounds of appeal that may arise during the course of the hearing

VIDYUT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1878/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vidyut Employees Co- The Dcit, Operative Housing Vs. Circle-6(1), Society, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pin – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaaav5182H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

delay of 9 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned for the reasons that shall be submitted at the time of hearing since the issue under appeal involves substantial questions of law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on legal/technical grounds, the order passed u/s. 148A

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