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

capital gain of Rs.17,63,438/- and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 23/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,63,438/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and such appeal has been filed on 16/05/2023. During the course

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TURAIRAO , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay ITA No.232/Hyd/2020 2 of 29 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under : “ 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred is erroneous both on fact and law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the short term capital gains

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

capital gains of Rs.373 crores\non account of sale of shares of Kakinada Seaports Limited to\nM/s. Auro Infra Private Limited. Since, this was the income\noffered by the assessee and accepted by the Assessing Officer\nand therefore, there was no question of dispute on this point\nat the stage of assessment order as well as appellate order\npassed

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 356 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under : “ (1) The Ld. AO erred in not considering the residential status of the Appellant and he/she has erred in disputing the TRC issued by the government authorities of Mauritius

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), 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.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee during the course of search and seizure action and in the statement recorded u/sec.131 of the Act has admitted the income arising from the sale of land in question as short term capital gain

MOHAN REDDY GADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

capital gains computation when the cost was previously accepted by the department for an earlier assessment year without any change in facts. Additionally, there was a delay in filing the appeals, for which condonation

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

condoning the delay. 3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have provided opportunity before finalizing the appeal. 4) The learned CIT (A) failed to consider the various grounds on merit; 5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was not properly issued and the said notice is not valid

ASHWITHA REDDY BADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor the A

condone the delay\nin filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication,\ninstituted before the Tribunal, subject to payment of Rs.5000/-\ntowards costs and such cost should be paid to the Prime Minister\nNational Relief Fund [\"PMNRF\"] on or before one month from the\ndate of this order and furnish relevant evidence to the Registry of\nthe Tribunal

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

condone the delay\nin filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication,\ninstituted before the Tribunal, subject to payment of Rs.5000/-\ntowards costs and such cost should be paid to the Prime Minister\nNational Relief Fund [\"PMNRF\"] on or before one month from the\ndate of this order and furnish relevant evidence to the Registry of\nthe Tribunal

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

condone the delay\nin filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication,\ninstituted before the Tribunal, subject to payment of Rs.5000/-\ntowards costs and such cost should be paid to the Prime Minister\nNational Relief Fund [\"PMNRF\"] on or before one month from the\ndate of this order and furnish relevant evidence to the Registry of\nthe Tribunal

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

gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

condoned the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal considered the grounds related to the addition made on account of sale of land and unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the land was converted to non-agricultural use and hence capital gains

MURALI MOHAN VISWANADHUNI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

condone the delay of 32 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and to admit the appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not raising any objection on the delay in presenting the appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal as required as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Mela Ram & sons

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

condone the delay, there is no denial of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of M.A.No. 21/2022 in M.A.No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10/01/2022 held that in cases, where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual

R. NEELIMA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “ 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) -11, Hyderabad is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances

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

BALAJI FINANCE,GAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the indexed cost of acquisition of land, assuming it was included in the construction cost. The assessee appealed this decision.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's medical condition and condoned

ALLAM ADAVAIAH ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gains at Rs.1,12,53,000/-. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 15 days. He has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay