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

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in respect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement with the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of acquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to scrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost claimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were subjected

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

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in respect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement with the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of acquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to scrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost claimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were subjected

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

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in respect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement with the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of acquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to scrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost claimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were subjected

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

long term capital gains declared by the assessee in respect of land in pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement with the builder. Further, the appellant has computed cost of acquisition at 2150 per sq.yd and the same was subjected to scrutiny assessment, where the A.O. has accepted the cost claimed by the assessee. Further, although the proceedings were subjected

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

long-term- 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

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

long-term- 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

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 of Rs.2

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

long time." There is again no basis, for condonation but for sympathy and playing the victim card. The appellant is not even humble in the admission of the same. Therefore, there is no basis for condonation of delay and no case of financial hardship has been brought out in the submission made by the appellant. The appellant has used

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

delay of 68 days is condoned and the appeals are taken up for hearing. 10. The grounds of appeal no. 1 of the present appeal is general and does not require any adjudication. I.T.A. Nos. 1678, 1679, 1680 :- 6 -: & 1138/Chny/2014 11. The ground of appeal nos. 2 to 5 raised by the assessee are not pressed and hence the same

PADMAVATHI REDDY GADDAM ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay is condoned therefore. 3. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The order of the learned First Appellate Authority is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2.The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the property in dispute owned by the State Government

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as under. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian and working as Sr. Foreman (Civil Contracts) in Facilities Management Department with M/s. Qatar Energy and filed letter dated 25.08.2022 from

SUNITHA MALU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed its revised return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 26/12/2018, declaring an income of Rs.23,05,820/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” for verifying “large deduction claimed

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

condone the delay of filing of the appeal before the Honorable ITAT.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a foreign company incorporated in Mauritius, filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) for the A.Y. 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.Nil, claiming a refund of Rs.13,70,49,255/-. The case of the assessee was selected

GOPAL NAIDU THIRUMALESH,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, CHITTOOR.

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.314/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Gopal Naidu Vs. Income Tax Officer Thirumalesh Ward 2 Chittoor Chittoor Pan:Aosps0818Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/10/2024 आदेश/Order

delay of 5 days in filing of the appeal by the Page 1 of 6 ITA No 314 of 2024 Gopal Naidu Thirumalesh assessee is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income

BOMMAK PREM KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

long term capital gains of the assessee at Rs.2,49,39,660/- u/sec.54F of the Act. And in appeal before the learned CIT(A), there was a delay of 175 days. The learned CIT(A) did not condone

UMA MAHESWARA RAO BODAPATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non- resident and filed his return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 29.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs.8,29,23,240/-. The assessment has been

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA vs. M.BHAGYA LAKSHMI , KADAPA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

delay in filing of the cross objection by the assessee is condoned and the cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 3. First we take-up ITA No.2236/Hyd/2018 for AY 2012-13 as the lead case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and a member of the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh