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

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 :

4. With respect to the addition of Rs.5,59,249,590/- 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

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

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:

B’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी "वजय पाल राव, उपा" य" एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, लेखा सद" य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

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

Bench: Us :

Section 194A of the Act. 4. As the assessee company had failed to comply with the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 142(1) of the Act, the A.O. was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O., in the absence 4 Pinki Fresh Foods Limited

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

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

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

249(4)(a), ignoring the fact that the assessee had not paid the tax due on the income returned by it.\n2. Alternatively and without prejudice to ground no.1, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.3,89,56,740/-.\n3. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2014 dated

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.

b) of the Act, dated 19/02/2024 was issued to the assessee, which, however, was not replied by him. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 11/03/2024. Notice under section Prajyoth Kumar Adi vs. ITO 148 of the Act, dated 12/03/2024 was issued to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to file his return

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

b) Cooper Corporation Pvt Ltd., Vs DCIT, reported in ITA No. 866/PN/2014. (c) CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd., reported 179 taxman.com 326 (SC) (d) Gati Limited Vs ITO, in ITA No. 1325/Hyd/2015. (e) Crane Software International Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 741/Ban/2010. 6.2 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below