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

139. The question for consideration which arose before the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case was that whether the Commissioner was justified in exercise of powers conferred under section 264 of the Act in rejecting the revision application more particularly, when the assessee had failed to raise the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) and subsequently being

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

139. The question for consideration which arose before the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case was that whether the Commissioner was justified in exercise of powers conferred under section 264 of the Act in rejecting the revision application more particularly, when the assessee had failed to raise the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) and subsequently being

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

condoning the delay. and the remaining ground nos.4 to 16 for discussion can be summarized as follows: 1) Ground 4: Disallowance of Rs.24,94,00,000 under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2) Grounds 5 to 7: Disallowance of Rs.21,08,45,001 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3) Grounds 8 and 9: Payments made

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

1)(a) of the Act contemplates that the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139. The Ld. AR submitted that the same language has been employed by the legislature in section 148 of the Act. Elaborating further on his contention

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

139. The question for consideration which arose before the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case was that whether the Commissioner was justified in exercise of powers conferred under section 264 of the Act in rejecting the revision application more particularly, when the assessee had failed to raise the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) and subsequently being

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

139. The question for consideration which arose before the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case was that whether the Commissioner was justified in exercise of powers conferred under section 264 of the Act in rejecting the revision application more particularly, when the assessee had failed to raise the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) and subsequently being

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

139. The question for consideration which arose before the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case was that whether the Commissioner was justified in exercise of powers conferred under section 264 of the Act in rejecting the revision application more particularly, when the assessee had failed to raise the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) and subsequently being

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

139. The question for consideration which arose before the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case was that whether the Commissioner was justified in exercise of powers conferred under section 264 of the Act in rejecting the revision application more particularly, when the assessee had failed to raise the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) and subsequently being

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

condonation of delay. Page 27 of 33 ITA Nos 2050 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we uphold the order of the FAA and decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands disallowed.” 14. In this view of the matter

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

condonation of delay. Page 27 of 33 ITA Nos 2050 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we uphold the order of the FAA and decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands disallowed.” 14. In this view of the matter

FEDERATION OF AP COOPERATIVE URBAN BANKS AND CREDIT SOCIETIES LIMITED HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

condone the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order issued u/s 143(1) of the Act is contrary to the facts and also to the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The disallowance of deduction

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY WANKIDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, MANCHIRIAL

Bench: Us:

delay occurred due to reasonable cause and the claim is otherwise legally allowable. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition under section 143(1)(a)(ii) was made on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of section 80AC read with section 80P and judicial precedents, resulting in undue hardship to the Appellant. 3 Primary Agriculture Cooperative

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

139(1)", "Sec. 119(2)(b)", "Sec. 132", "Sec. 153A", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 269SS", "Sec. 271D", "Sec. 275(1)(c)", "Sec. 271E", "Sec. 119(2)(b)", "Sec. 273B", "Sec. 143(1)", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 147", "Sec. 271E", "Sec. 269T", "Sec. 271D", "Sec. 271E", "Sec. 275(1)(c)", "Sec. 271B", "Sec. 271D", "Sec. 271E" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

sections of the Act under any five heads of income. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) against concealment of income without appreciating the facts. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act basing on the income determined in the assessment proceedings