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

9. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that on merit, the assessment order passed by the A.O in the name of the assessee, towards sale consideration received for sale of the property held by the family through HUF is invalid and liable to be quashed. The assessee has sold the property as a member of HUF and upon

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

9. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that on merit, the assessment order passed by the A.O in the name of the assessee, towards sale consideration received for sale of the property held by the family through HUF is invalid and liable to be quashed. The assessee has sold the property as a member of HUF and upon

CHURCH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

CHURCH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

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

Bench: Us:

9 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO submitted to demonstrate the nexus between deposits and business income. The appellant failed to substantiate the cash flow, provide bank statements, or reconcile deposits with disclosed income. In absence of any verifiable explanation, the AO was justified in invoking section 698. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Lubtec India

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

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

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

9.\nHaving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio\nlaid down in the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High\nCourt, we do not hesitate to hold that the impugned penalty under\nSection 271E is not permissible in the absence of regular\nassessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue. Hence, the\nsame

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

9.\nHaving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio\nlaid down in the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High\nCourt, we do not hesitate to hold that the impugned penalty under\nSection 271E is not permissible in the absence of regular\nassessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue. Hence, the\nsame

KRANTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHADRACHALLAM vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

139(9) renders the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) unsustainable. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee further pointed out that, Section 80AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has no application to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as Section 80AC of the Act, covers only deductions under Chapter

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