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

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused

RAIN CEMENTS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved 10 ITA.No.540/Hyd./2025 nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration

MAHATHI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

23,75,560/- by making an addition of Rs.15,22,98,920/-, however, after considering the explanation Rs. 0 3 Rs. 0 Grounds of Appeal and documentary evidence submitted in respect of investment made by Sri.Sayeed Ahmed Omar Burraiyah, income returned was accepted. Therefore, the learned Pr.CIT erred in assuming that the AO NFAC failed to verify the taxability

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

SRI RAMALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

10(23) of the Act has not been fulfilled and the assessee has not sought the condonation of delay for filing the audit report from the competent authority. For that purpose, the learned CIT (A) NFAC relied on the circular of the Board dated 19.07.22 and also the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad vide para

SRI RAMALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

10(23) of the Act has not been fulfilled and the assessee has not sought the condonation of delay for filing the audit report from the competent authority. For that purpose, the learned CIT (A) NFAC relied on the circular of the Board dated 19.07.22 and also the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad vide para

D PEDA REDDAIAH ,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PRODDUTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri D. Pedda Reddaiah Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop:Sri Lakshmi Ward-1 Proddatur Venkateswara Wines, Kadapa Distt. Pan:Agipd1836F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2020 Order This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y 2010-11 Filed Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-Kurnool, Dated 4.3.2015. 2. At The Outset It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 1422 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating As Under: “1. I, D. Peda Reddaiah, S/O D.Subbarayudu, Aged About 47 Years, Prop. Of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines, Housed At 11/231, Badvel Road, Mydukur Village, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, Do Solemnly Affirm & State As Under: 2. I Am An Illiterate & Not Well Conversant With The Statutory Provisions & I Carried On Business In Wines For Two Years At Mydkur Village. I Don'T Have Any Formal Education. 3. I Have Carried On Wines Business Under The Name & Style Of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines For About Two Page 1 Of 11

10. If the delay is condoned, a meritorious case would be heard on merits by hearing both the deponent and the Department and on the contrary, if the delay is not condoned, a meritorious case would be thrown out on the Page 2 of 11 ITA No 559 of 2019 D Pedda Reddaiah Kadapa. threshold violating the principles of natural

CHURCH EDUCATINAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned. All these cases are now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Both the learned representatives inform us at the outset that all these assesses’ appeals challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s order withdrawing their respective Section 10(23C)(vi) approvals. And that we ought to take up ITA No.320/Hyd/2020 in the case of Karshak Vidya Parishad

TARAKARAMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned. All these cases are now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Both the learned representatives inform us at the outset that all these assesses’ appeals challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s order withdrawing their respective Section 10(23C)(vi) approvals. And that we ought to take up ITA No.320/Hyd/2020 in the case of Karshak Vidya Parishad

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned. All these cases are now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Both the learned representatives inform us at the outset that all these assesses’ appeals challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s order withdrawing their respective Section 10(23C)(vi) approvals. And that we ought to take up ITA No.320/Hyd/2020 in the case of Karshak Vidya Parishad

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

delay stands condoned. All these cases are now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. Both the learned representatives inform us at the outset that all these assesses’ appeals challenge correctness of the Pr.CIT’s order withdrawing their respective Section 10(23C)(vi) approvals. And that we ought to take up ITA No.320/Hyd/2020 in the case of Karshak Vidya Parishad

SRI VENAKTESWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,,JAMALAPURAM vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD1- (3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

condonation of delay which are reproduced in para 5 to 7 of the order as under: Page 2 of 37 ITA Nos 1002 and 1003 of 2024 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam 4. We further note that vide order dated 9/9/2024 in Writ Petition No.23368/2024, the Hon'ble High Court has observed in para 2 and as under: “2. This petition

SRI VENKATESWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,JAMALAPURAM vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

condonation of delay which are reproduced in para 5 to 7 of the order as under: Page 2 of 37 ITA Nos 1002 and 1003 of 2024 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam 4. We further note that vide order dated 9/9/2024 in Writ Petition No.23368/2024, the Hon'ble High Court has observed in para 2 and as under: “2. This petition

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

23 as under: \"22. If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that