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 by filing return of income for the year consideration. Further, even after reopening of the assessment, the assessee neither furnished any return of income nor explained the case. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the property sold for the year under consideration is HUF property and the assessee cannot be assessed in her individual capacity

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 by filing return of income for the year consideration. Further, even after reopening of the assessment, the assessee neither furnished any return of income nor explained the case. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the property sold for the year under consideration is HUF property and the assessee cannot be assessed in her individual capacity

ALLRUI SRINIVAS RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1923/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Allrui Srinivas Raju, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-12(1), Pan: Ahepr6968H Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri K C Devdas, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 12/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Allrui Srinivas Raju, (“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 17/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. Allrui Srinivas Raju Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Rounds Of Appeal:

section 147 of the Act on the allegation that profit on account of the said JDA arises in their hands also. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the copies of the assessment orders passed in the cases of A. Bhaskar Raju and D. Satyanarayana Raju placed at page nos. 66 to 73 of the paper book and submitted that

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 :

249,590/- and addition of Rs.5,14,80,879/- under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) had held at pages 58 to 65 as under : The facts of the case are that 11 companies amalgamated with the appellant vide the order of High Court dated 10.10.2013 w.e.f 01.04.2011. The amalgamating companies had identical shareholders and shareholding

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 2(47) r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in view of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao vs. ACIT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (A.P) therefore, the assessee is liable for capital gains

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 2(47) r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in view of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao vs. ACIT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (A.P) therefore, the assessee is liable for capital gains

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 2(47) r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in view of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao vs. ACIT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (A.P) therefore, the assessee is liable for capital gains

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO,(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 2(47) r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in view of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao vs. ACIT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (A.P) therefore, the assessee is liable for capital gains

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 2(47) r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in view of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao vs. ACIT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (A.P) therefore, the assessee is liable for capital gains

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 2(47) r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in view of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao vs. ACIT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (A.P) therefore, the assessee is liable for capital gains

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

gain any advantage on account of developments that resulted on account of non-payment of self asst. tax. On the contrary, the Appellant had faced lot of pressure carrying the burden of payment of disputed tax for this long time." There is again no basis, for condonation but for sympathy and playing the victim card. The appellant is not even

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

Gain\n(LTCG). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that\nas Village: Manchirevula falls within Rajendranagar Revenue\nMandal, therefore, it could not have been taken as a part and\nparcel of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The Ld. AR submitted\nthat \"Rajendranagar” is also one of the Municipal Corporation.\nElaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that

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

Capital Gain as the income assessable u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. 7) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered all the other grounds of appeal before deciding the appeal ex-parte. 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income

GURUJALA BABU RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1379/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Gurujala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Bsmpr6925C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y. Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order

section 249(4)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR has further submitted that, the assessee has not filed any return of income, as there was no taxable income of the assessee for the year under consideration. He has submitted that, the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of Long-Term Capital Gain

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

capital gain: Rs.12 crore; and (ii) addition of the interest income by treating it as income of the assessee company from unexplained sources: Rs.2,77,140/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 6. Ostensibly, as the assessee company, despite having been put to notice about the date of hearing of appeal (through

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

gain on account of foreign exchange fluctuation of Rs.15,46,428 as income from other sources; (ii) to disallow gratuity of Rs.1,32,95,577; and (iii) to disallow expenditure amounting to Rs.2,69,26,757 relatable to issue of foreign currency convertible bonds. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT under section

PRAJYOTH KUMAR ADI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.

capital gains (STCG) on the sale of the subject property. Also, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income regarding the aforesaid addition so made by him. 5. Apart from that, the AO made an addition of the interest received by the assessee of Rs.1