SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification on 19.03.2018 discussed in para 6.1 above and delay of 200 days since the receipt of the order u/s 154 although the appeal

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification on 19.03.2018 discussed in para 6.1 above and delay of 200 days since the receipt of the order u/s 154 although the appeal

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification on 19.03.2018 discussed in para 6.1 above and delay of 200 days since the receipt of the order u/s 154 although the appeal

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification on 19.03.2018 discussed in para 6.1 above and delay of 200 days since the receipt of the order u/s 154 although the appeal

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification on 19.03.2018 discussed in para 6.1 above and delay of 200 days since the receipt of the order u/s 154 although the appeal

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification on 19.03.2018 discussed in para 6.1 above and delay of 200 days since the receipt of the order u/s 154 although the appeal

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation for delay i.e. pending application u/s 154. Accordingly, the appellant has been unable to account for the delay of 1762 days (1562 days after the receipt of the order u/s 200A till filing the rectification on 19.03.2018 discussed in para 6.1 above and delay of 200 days since the receipt of the order u/s 154 although the appeal

LOVEEN BABU VUPPALA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

200 (Hyderabad-Trib). 6. The Ld.DR on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant has filed the return of income beyond the due date provided u/s 139(1) of the Act and further, Form 67 required to be filed under Rule

VAGDEVI REDDY TANDUR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal and in not deciding the appeal on merits 5. The Ld.CIT ( A) ought to have appreciated that during the course of appellate proceedings before him also, the effect of covid - 19 prevented the appellant from submitting her replies. 6. The Ld.CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant has promptly deducted

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

200 or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act, therefore, as per the clear mandate of section 234E of the Act, it was liable to pay by way of fee, a sum of Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continued. The CIT(A) based on his aforesaid observations, found no infirmity in the levy

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

200 or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act, therefore, as per the\nclear mandate of section 234E of the Act, it was liable to pay by way of fee, a\nsum of Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continued. The CIT(A)\nbased on his aforesaid observations, found no infirmity in the levy

MALLESHWARI NARAMULLA,RANGA REDDY vs. ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1195/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Malleshwari Vs. Income Tax Officer Naramulla Ward 2(1) Ranga Reddy Hyderabad Pan:Aulpn5122B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Snsr Chinmai & S Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have decided the grounds of appeal agitated before him. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have seen that Assessing Officer Ward-11(1), Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to issue notice

GAYATRI ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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- company is engaged in the business of development, construction and operation of power generation projects, filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2018- 2019 on 16.08.2019 declaring Rs.NIL

JHANSI LAKSHMI RAMANADHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.886/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ramanadham Ward 8 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpr3566K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.05.2024 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 292 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. Ar”) Submitted That The Assessee Is Page 1 Of 12

delay of 292 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 8. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 7 of 12 ITA No 886 of 2025 Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed her return of income

WASEEM AHMED SIDDIQUI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

200/- for all three credit cards for the entire financial year as ‘income’ under section 69A of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). 3. Assessee, being aggrieved by such an action of the learned Assessing Officer, preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and pleaded that the learned assessing officer has not given an opportunity

MOHAN REDDY GADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

200/-. It was the argument of the counsel for the\nassessee that the cost of acquisition of land has been accepted by\nthe department for the A.Y.2013-14, where the appellant while\ncomputing the long term capital gains in pursuant to Joint\nDevelopment Agreement has adopted cost of Rs.2150/- per sq.yd\non the basis of SRO value and therefore, once

SRICHARAN DEVINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

delay of 29 days in filing each\nof the three appeals is condoned, and all the appeals are admitted for\nadjudication on merits.\nITA No. 1559/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2023-24 :\n5.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed\nher return of income for the Assessment Year 2023–24 on 31.07.2023,\ndeclaring

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

200/-. It was the argument of the counsel for the\nassessee that the cost of acquisition of land has been accepted by\nthe department for the A.Y.2013-14, where the appellant while\ncomputing the long term capital gains in pursuant to Joint\nDevelopment Agreement has adopted cost of Rs.2150/- per sq.yd\non the basis of SRO value and therefore, once