AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

91 and DTAA does not provide for denial of exemption merely on account of delay in filing of certain forms/reports in contrast to other provisions of the Act such as 80AC, 801A(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) where attendant conditions of compliance are mandatory. 9. In the factual backdrop, we notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal

SONALI VERMA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(6), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Smt. Sonali Verma Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12 (6) Pan:Amnpv3410A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sk Chaturvedi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order

91 and DTAA does not provide for denial of exemption merely on account of delay in filing of certain forms/reports in contrast to other provisions of the Act such as 80AC, 801A(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) where attendant conditions of compliance are mandatory. 9. In the factual backdrop, we notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal

NANDA KISHORE RAVULA,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

91 and DTAA does not provide for denial of exemption merely on account of delay in filing of certain forms/reports in contrast to other provisions of the Act such as 80AC, 801A(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) where attendant conditions of compliance are mandatory. 9. In the factual backdrop, we notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal

SRIDHARAN VENKATANARAYANAN,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Sridharan Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venkatanarayanan Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgaps6316N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A V. Balaji राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

91 and DTAA does not provide for denial of exemption merely on account of delay in filing of certain forms/reports in contrast to other provisions of the Act such as 80AC, 801A(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) where attendant conditions of compliance are mandatory. 9. In the factual backdrop, we notice that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, as explained under Section 292CC and the limitation provided under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 19. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, although the joint warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee and other associated persons/entities, but separate panchanama was drawn in the case

SURESH KUMAR VOBBILISETTY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1204/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Vobbilisetty, (International Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acgpv5441G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca K Hemalatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/03/2025 आदेश/Order

91 and DTAA does not provide for denial of exemption merely on account of delay in Page 6 of 10 ITA No 1204 of 2024 Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty filing of certain forms/reports in contrast to other provisions of the Act such as 80AC, 801A(7), 10A(5) and 10B(5) where attendant conditions of compliance are mandatory

LOVEEN BABU VUPPALA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 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 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7. In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form-67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same with delay and that too due to Covid out break he was not able