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

37 taxmann.com 137 (Mumbai - Trib.) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Further, the Ld. CIT (A) had also decided the issue involved on merit and after considering the relevant facts rejected the explanation of the assessee that the impugned property sold by the assessee and other co-owners

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)

37,260/- and further erred in setting aside assessment made by the AO of NFAC. 4. The learned Ld. Pr. CIT considering the documentary evidence submitted and collected by the AO should have clearly mentioned what is the deficit in the enquiries made and should have himself made a part of enquiry to prove the failure

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

10,2017 against launch\nof prosecution proceedings.\nThereafter, there was no communication or action from\nthe Department and the assessee assumed that the matter has\nreached a closure.\nHowever, in the month of July 2019, the Id Counsel got\nto hear that the Department has decided to launch the prosecution\nproceedings uls 276C(1) r/w section 277 before the Economic

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.\n12.1.\n12.2.\n12. Appellant

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

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

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the delay and allow the C.O. for\nadjudication.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual,\nfiled its Return of Income (“ROI\") for A.Y. 2013-14 on 5.3.2015\nadmitting total income of Rs.3,21,052/-. The Learned Assessing\nOfficer (\"Ld. AO\") was on receipt of information that the assessee\nhad sold land during

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of above two case laws considered hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay, does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge delay

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of above two case laws considered hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay, does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge delay

THE WARANGAL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,HANAMKONDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) The Warangal District Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Cooperative Central Bank Income Tax, Limited, Hanamkonda, Circle-3(1), Warangal. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabtt3137G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 11/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

10. We shall first deal with the assessee’s claim regarding applicability of the concessional tax rates contemplated under Section 115BAD after the CBDT order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, dated 01.09.2025, condoning the delay in filing “Form 10IF” for the subject year, i.e., AY 2021-22. 11. Admittedly, the assessee appellant had failed to file “Form 10IF

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

37,38,670/-. On credible information that assessee and one Chetan Agarwal are regularly conducting dabba trading search and seizure operation u/s 132 has been conducted on 17.03.2020 in the office cum residential premises of the assessee. During course of search and seizure operation cash of Rs.2,11,82,000 was found and out which an amount of Rs.2

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

37 21-01-2016 81-83 Demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFESI Act by Bank of Maharashtra in case of company 38 21-03-2016 84-86 Recall notice from Andhra Bank for payment of dues and installments of BNR Infra and Leasing 39 24-03-2016 87 Notice under section 13(2) of SARFESI

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

37 21-01-2016 81-83 Demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFESI Act by Bank of Maharashtra in case of company 38 21-03-2016 84-86 Recall notice from Andhra Bank for payment of dues and installments of BNR Infra and Leasing 39 24-03-2016 87 Notice under section 13(2) of SARFESI

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

37 21-01-2016 81-83 Demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFESI Act by Bank of Maharashtra in case of company 38 21-03-2016 84-86 Recall notice from Andhra Bank for payment of dues and installments of BNR Infra and Leasing 39 24-03-2016 87 Notice under section 13(2) of SARFESI

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

37 21-01-2016 81-83 Demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFESI Act by Bank of Maharashtra in case of company 38 21-03-2016 84-86 Recall notice from Andhra Bank for payment of dues and installments of BNR Infra and Leasing 39 24-03-2016 87 Notice under section 13(2) of SARFESI