SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

MADHAVA REDDY BADDEVOLU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

SANAH BEGUM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Section 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 (in short ‘the Act') dated 09.12.2022 for the assessment year\n2021-22. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the\nfollowing grounds of appeal before us:\n“1. The order of Ld.NFAC confirming the AO's order is erroneous in law,\ncontrary to facts and probabilities of the case

MUMTAZ ALI MOHD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 12/05/2023 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.2,97,84,910/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee despite having been given 5 opportunities, had failed to participate

GANGADHAR AGARWAL,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D. The same was\namended by the 2nd Amendment Act; w.e.f. 01.04.2017, enhancing the rate to 60%. Hence there\nwas no new liability created and the rate of tax merely stood enhanced which is applicable to the\nassessments carried on in that year. The enhanced rate applies from the commencement of the\n assessment

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the IT Act because assessee has no books of accounts, but only balance sheet drawn at the end of the year. 4. Learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the submission that the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- out of Rs. 18,50,000/ - did not relate to the previous year but that it relates

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the IT Act because assessee has no books of accounts, but only balance sheet drawn at the end of the year. 4. Learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the submission that the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- out of Rs. 18,50,000/ - did not relate to the previous year but that it relates

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 of the IT Act because assessee has no books of accounts, but only balance sheet drawn at the end of the year. 4. Learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the submission that the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- out of Rs. 18,50,000/ - did not relate to the previous year but that it relates

SATISH NAGESH KULKARNI,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1025/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satish Nagesh Kulkarni, Vs. Dcit, Secunderabad. Circle-10(1), Pan: Begpk9791B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/01/2024, 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 29/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out, as under: “Findings and Decision 4. The facts of the case as per record are that the Assessee-Individual filed return of income

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

166 days by the Income-Tax CO No.14 & 15/Hyd/2025 United Developer Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 20. As the assessee firm vide its cross objection has assailed the validity

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

166 days by the Income-Tax CO No.14 & 15/Hyd/2025 United Developer Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 20. As the assessee firm vide its cross objection has assailed the validity

LATEEF ABDUL MOHAMMED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18

166 62,98,100 - 6,49,257 Nov.15 till 6,49,257 8,59,884 17,99,830 - 3,03,862 8.11.2015 47,18,650 3,19,98,486 3,51,07,890 - 45,98,567 14. Referring to page 178 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the details of month-wise cash sales

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

68 01-07-2017 137-138 Notice under section 13(2) by Andhra Bank for enforcement 69 07-09-2017 of security interest in case of B Narasimha Reddy 139-140 Summons issued for the debts of Bank of Maharashtra by 70 08-09-2017 Debt Recovery Tribunal to Elite Infra Projects Private 14 I Limited Reply by Canara

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

68 01-07-2017 137-138 Notice under section 13(2) by Andhra Bank for enforcement 69 07-09-2017 of security interest in case of B Narasimha Reddy 139-140 Summons issued for the debts of Bank of Maharashtra by 70 08-09-2017 Debt Recovery Tribunal to Elite Infra Projects Private 14 I Limited Reply by Canara

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

68 01-07-2017 137-138 Notice under section 13(2) by Andhra Bank for enforcement 69 07-09-2017 of security interest in case of B Narasimha Reddy 139-140 Summons issued for the debts of Bank of Maharashtra by 70 08-09-2017 Debt Recovery Tribunal to Elite Infra Projects Private 14 I Limited Reply by Canara