DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing Form 10B as per Instruction No.F.No.267/482/77-IT(part) dated 09.02.1978. 7. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4 ITA Nos.1210 and 1211/Hyd/2025 & C.O. Nos.27 and 28/Hyd/2025 National Institute of Rural Development & Pranchayati Raj 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, National Institute of Rural Development

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

13. The Ld. CIT (A) rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate her argument with relevant evidence. Before us, the assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), nor explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before

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

13. The Ld. CIT (A) rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate her argument with relevant evidence. Before us, the assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), nor explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before

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

1. If the appellant has acted diligently then normally the delay gets condoned. However, if the delay is caused due to negligence on the part of the appellant, it become difficult to get the delay condoned. Shakti Clearing Agency (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 127 Taxmann. 2. In Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB 73[, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, 74[section 115JB 75[, section 115JC] or section 115VW] 76[or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB 73[, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, 74[section 115JB 75[, section 115JC] or section 115VW] 76[or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB 73[, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, 74[section 115JB 75[, section 115JC] or section 115VW] 76[or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

MADURAI TUTICORIN EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 12. Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice

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

13. However, it is significant to note that even within the two\ntimelines given, the proceeding for imposition of penalty ought to\nbe completed within a reasonable time. The latter part of section\n275(1)(c) of the Act, providing for a period of six months, is clearly\nindicative that the Income Tax Officers cannot be given a long\nhandle

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

13,58,465/- out whichever is not applicable) 28 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 27.3. Thereafter, at page 63 for the A.Y. 2012-13 at Sl.Nos.26, 27 and 30, it was mentioned as under : 26 For claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4)(ii) and Yes No (iv)/80-IB(3), (4), (5), (7) and (11)/80-IC please indicate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

13,58,465/- out whichever is not applicable) 28 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 27.3. Thereafter, at page 63 for the A.Y. 2012-13 at Sl.Nos.26, 27 and 30, it was mentioned as under : 26 For claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4)(ii) and Yes No (iv)/80-IB(3), (4), (5), (7) and (11)/80-IC please indicate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

13,58,465/- out whichever is not applicable) 28 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 27.3. Thereafter, at page 63 for the A.Y. 2012-13 at Sl.Nos.26, 27 and 30, it was mentioned as under : 26 For claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4)(ii) and Yes No (iv)/80-IB(3), (4), (5), (7) and (11)/80-IC please indicate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

13,58,465/- out whichever is not applicable) 28 M/s. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. 27.3. Thereafter, at page 63 for the A.Y. 2012-13 at Sl.Nos.26, 27 and 30, it was mentioned as under : 26 For claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4)(ii) and Yes No (iv)/80-IB(3), (4), (5), (7) and (11)/80-IC please indicate

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

13. However, it is significant to note that even within the two\ntimelines given, the proceeding for imposition of penalty ought to\nbe completed within a reasonable time. The latter part of section\n275(1)(c) of the Act, providing for a period of six months, is clearly\nindicative that the Income Tax Officers cannot be given a long\nhandle