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

142(1) of the act was issued and there is no response from the assessee During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O noticed that the assessee along with 3 others sold ancestral immovable property which is an open land admeasuring 8.25 acres situated at survey No.299, Gundrampally Village of Chityala, Nalgonda District for a consideration of Rs.35

LINGAMGUNTA ADILAXMI,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

SANZYME PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

BIKARAM PUSHPENDER,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

RAGHU ALEKH BARLI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Accordingly we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and quashed the impugned assessment order. Following the same reasoning, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are also allowed in ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y 1317/Hyd/2025 Smt. Lingamgunta Income Tax Officer 2015-16 Adilaxmi, Secunderabad Ward 10 (1) Pan:Amnpl4940M Hyderabad 915/Hyd/2025 Shri Raghu Alekh Barli Dy. Cit 2018-19 Hyderabad Circle 6(1) Pan:Ahjpa1085F Hyderabad 1487/Hyd/2025 Sanzyme Private Ltd Dy. Cit 2019-20 Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaacu2692R Hyderabad 1606/Hyd/2025 Shri Bikaram Income Tax Officer 2018-19 Pushpender, Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan: Cebpp4471F Hyderabad िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Shri S. Rama Rao & Sashank Dundu & C.A. Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rahman, Sr. Dr

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 29 ITA Nos 1317 915 1487 and 1606 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against

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

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

142 36a[or section 148] or section 153A 37[***] relating to the assessment year commencing 38[on the 1st day of April, 39[2023]] shall,— 12(f) in the case of a company not being a company to which clause (g) applies, be in Form No. ITR-6 and be verified in the manner indicated therein; (g) in the case

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

142 36a[or section 148] or section 153A 37[***] relating to the assessment year commencing 38[on the 1st day of April, 39[2023]] shall,— 12(f) in the case of a company not being a company to which clause (g) applies, be in Form No. ITR-6 and be verified in the manner indicated therein; (g) in the case

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

142 36a[or section 148] or section 153A 37[***] relating to the assessment year commencing 38[on the 1st day of April, 39[2023]] shall,— 12(f) in the case of a company not being a company to which clause (g) applies, be in Form No. ITR-6 and be verified in the manner indicated therein; (g) in the case

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

Bench: Us:

142(1) of the Act. 21. Although the Ld. CIT-DR had tried to impress upon us that for framing of assessment under section 148 of the Act, there is no obligation cast upon the AO to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, but we are unable to concur with the same

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

VIRCHOW PETROCHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

1)(c) of the Act on 11/07/2025 was dropped in its new email account,\ni.e., \"accounts@virchowpetro.com”, therefore, in our view the same\nexplain the reason leading to the delay in filing the preset appeal, which,\nthus, merits to be condoned. Our aforesaid view that a liberal approach\nshould be taken while considering an application seeking condonation\nof the delay involved

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

142(1) was issued on 04 -07 2012 for which, there was no response from the assessee. This was followed by a fresh notice' u/s.142(1), along with the detailed clarification. In response to this notice, the assessee sought adjournment and the case was adjourned accordingly to 06-09-2012. The assessee again sought adjournment to 2nd week of October

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

142(1) was issued on 04 -07 2012 for which, there was no response from the assessee. This was followed by a fresh notice' u/s.142(1), along with the detailed clarification. In response to this notice, the assessee sought adjournment and the case was adjourned accordingly to 06-09-2012. The assessee again sought adjournment to 2nd week of October

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