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

v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395 Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that explanation of delay for the entire period is necessary. In other words what is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause pleaded should not only be a probable one, but it should

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

v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 395 Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that explanation of delay for the entire period is necessary. In other words what is expected of the appellant in such matters is to show that delay was occasioned due to some sufficient cause. The cause pleaded should not only be a probable one, but it should

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

2 & 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that there is a delay of 125 days and went on to reject the petition for condonation of delay and clearly at Para 3.2 has held that delay is not condoned. However, the Ld.CIT(A) instead of closing the appeal at that stage, has proceeded to adjudicate on the merits

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

2 & 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that there is a delay of 125 days and went on to reject the petition for condonation of delay and clearly at Para 3.2 has held that delay is not condoned. However, the Ld.CIT(A) instead of closing the appeal at that stage, has proceeded to adjudicate on the merits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(I/C), HYDERABAD vs. MADHU KUMAR PATEL , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal by the Revenue as well as the C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Madhu Kumar Patel (International Taxation-2), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 343/Hyd/2021) Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. Dy.Cit (International Hyderabad Taxation2), Pan:Bvdpp3797G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.03.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal As Well As The C.O Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided In This Common Order.

delay in filing of the appeal by the Revenue and the C.O. by the assessee are condoned and the appeal as well as the C.O are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident and a resident of the United Kingdom. He has not filed his return of income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TURAIRAO , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay ITA No.232/Hyd/2020 2 of 29 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under : “ 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred is erroneous both on fact and law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the short term capital gains of Rs.2

THE WARANGAL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,HANAMKONDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) The Warangal District Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Cooperative Central Bank Income Tax, Limited, Hanamkonda, Circle-3(1), Warangal. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabtt3137G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 11/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

47,566/-, as the respective amounts were not credited to the employees’ accounts within the due dates prescribed under the relevant statute. 4 The Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), wherein it assailed the intimation issued by the AO/CPC under Section

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 868 days in filing the appeal and admit the same. 12 ITA.No.154/Hyd./2021 Solemnly affirmed and signed before me on this the Pusa Nanda Kumar 15 day of March, 2021. Deponent” 4.1. In addition to the affidavit, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has explained the cause of delay that his Counsel

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

condonation of delay involved in filing of an appeal. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y 2016-17 on 31.03.2018 disclosing an income of Rs.6,43,030/-. Thereafter, the original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 24-12-2018, determining

MURALI MOHAN VISWANADHUNI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) for the A.Y 2014-15. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2

MANGAVALLI GRANDHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

delay is condoned therefore. :- 2 -: 3. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal and confirming assessing capital gains is not only erroneous both on facts and in law but in perverse. 2.The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of initiating proceedings u/s.147 though

LATE RAJESHAM RAGI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Vs. Pin – 505 001. Telangana. Karimnagar. Pan Aaxpr4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Rv Nageshwar Sharma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law in as much the notice initiating the proceedings were issued on a wrong person. The appellant had raised

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

47 14-06-2016 withdrawal of notice issued by Bank of Maharashtra 100 Letter submitted by company to Bank of Maharashtra requesting for three months time and explaining the delay in the realization of the amounts 48 20-06-2016 101-104 Letter by BNR Infra to SBI for substitution of the new property for the properties given as collateral

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

47 14-06-2016 withdrawal of notice issued by Bank of Maharashtra 100 Letter submitted by company to Bank of Maharashtra requesting for three months time and explaining the delay in the realization of the amounts 48 20-06-2016 101-104 Letter by BNR Infra to SBI for substitution of the new property for the properties given as collateral

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

47 14-06-2016 withdrawal of notice issued by Bank of Maharashtra 100 Letter submitted by company to Bank of Maharashtra requesting for three months time and explaining the delay in the realization of the amounts 48 20-06-2016 101-104 Letter by BNR Infra to SBI for substitution of the new property for the properties given as collateral

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

47 14-06-2016 withdrawal of notice issued by Bank of Maharashtra 100 Letter submitted by company to Bank of Maharashtra requesting for three months time and explaining the delay in the realization of the amounts 48 20-06-2016 101-104 Letter by BNR Infra to SBI for substitution of the new property for the properties given as collateral