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

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused

NARENDER AGARWAL,M/S JR FORGINGS 39/A/1 ,IDA BALANAGAR HYDERABAD 500037 ,TELANGANA INDIA vs. ITO WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Narender Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-11(3) Prop M/S. Jr Forgings Hyderabad 39/A/1, Ida Balanagar Hyderabad-500 037 Pan : Aampa4460G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Krishnan Revenue By: Shri T.Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2021 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Ay 2019-20. 2. There Is A Delay Of 25 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With The Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however these relate to the order of ld.CIT(A), NFAC in sustaining the adjustment of Rs. 1,42,980/-by the CPC, Bangalore on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. 4. Facts

VE VEE'S MANAGERIAL SERVICES,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 167/Hyd/2022 & 168/Hyd/2022 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. Although, a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,57,34,616/- made by the AO in the order passed u/s. 154 of the I.T.Act on account of delayed payment

LSC STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Lsc Steels Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 5-2-196/1, Of Income Tax, Near Ravi Weigh Bridge Circle – 16(1), Distillery Road Hyderabad. Secunderabad Hyderabad-500003 Pan : Aabcl2762J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Mutha Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2021 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Ay 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 47 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee, For Which Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

condoned the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The only ground raised by the assessee reads as under:- 2 ITA 56/Hyd/2022 1. The commissioner ought to have allowed employee contribution remitted of Rs. 1,00,825/- after the due date with minor delay but paid before the filing of income tax return u/s. 139(1). 4. Facts of the case

GANESH SAND BLASTING WORKS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A)/ NFAC in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.2,05,549/- by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act on Page

CHEDEDEEPU SRINIVAS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 41 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal: “1. The impugned order of the learned Assessing Officer in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts

SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DIST CO-OP CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,,NELLORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore Vs. Acit,Circle-1, Nellore Dist Co-Op Central Bank 24-2-438, 1St Floor, Limited Gt Road 16-2-249, Central Bank Nellore-524001 Building Near Mahatma Gandhi Statue, Trunk Road Nellore Andhra Pradesh-524 001

condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Although, a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however these all relate to the order of the NFAC in sustaining the disallowances made by the AO amounting to Rs. 33,34,014/- being delay in deposit of Employee’s contribution to PF. 4. Facts of the case

SREE KRISHNA AUTOMOTIVES HYDERABAD PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Sree Krishna Automotives Vs. Dy. Cit, Hyderabad (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aakcs5353H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.10.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.30,53,317/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36 Of The I.T. Act On A/C Of Delayed Payment Of Pf & Esi.

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of automobile dealership business. It filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.14,99,78,293/-. The return was processed

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution

C2D SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the NFAC in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.3,23,096/- for the delayed Page 1 of 4 ITA No 217 of 2022 C2D Software Private Ltd Hyderabad payment of employees’ contribution towards

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD vs. QUARK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-16(4) Vs. M/S.Quark Enterprises 1St Floor, ‘B’ Block Private Limited I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards 10Th Floor, Ramky Masab Tank Grandoise Hyderabad Ramky Towers Complex Road No.62, Gachibowli Hyderabad-500 032

delay in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. Ground of appeal No.1 by the revenue reads as under:- 1. “Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act without appreciating that the method adopted for determination

DARSHAN VIJAYSINH BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, FACELESS CENTER DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

condone the slight delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeals for both the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 which are identical in nature however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming

DARSHAN V BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

condone the slight delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeals for both the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 which are identical in nature however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of civil construction of roads, culverts buildings etc. The assessee filed it's return of income for the assessment year

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

24 of the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of\nKalyan Chillara v. DCIT (supra), which is to the following effect :\n“ 16. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior\nStanding Counsel for the respondents, we went through certain records which were\nproduced before us and some of which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

delay is condoned therefore. 3. We notice at the outset that the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action holding the impugned assessment as void ab initio as follows: “VIII) During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR submitted following submissions:- "SUBMISSIONS: On the above grounds of appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. R S BROTHERS RETAIL INDIA PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Dy. C. I. T. Vs. M/S. R.S. Brothers Retail Circle 3(1) India (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Afspm0441A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. There Is A Delay Of 49 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Revenue For Which The Revenue Has Filed A Condonation Petition. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay & After Hearing The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Revenue Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

delay in filing of this appeal by the Revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. Page 1 of 5 ITA No 664 of 2022 RS Brothers Retail India P Ltd 3. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue reads as under: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned