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

condoning delay in filing appeals. Section 249(3)of the Act, that allows the FAA to admit belated appeals, reads as under : "(3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." Page

MUKTYAR SINGH THAKUR,ADILABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, ADILABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 207/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Muktyar Singh Thakur Vs. Income Tax Officer Adilabad Ward-1 Pan:Akxpt0168M Adilabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S Phanindra राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/04/2024 आदेश/Order

section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 rejected the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within time allowed under the Act does not come under reasonable cause and further, the assessee should be more vigilant

RAJESWARAMMA DUVVURU,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUDUR

Bench: Us:

Section 69A of the Act. Page 6 9. We have thoughtfully considered the “affidavit” filed by the assessee wherein she had deposed the reasons that had resulted to a delay of 207 days (sic) involved in filing the present appeal. It is stated by her that the delay had occasioned because her Chartered Accountant who was earlier handling the case

MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

condone the delay of 158 days in filing the present appeal, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

207/-; (iii) addition of unsecured loan made under section 68 of the Act: Rs.16,19,208/-; (iv) disallowance towards TDS and VAT payable under section 43B of the Act: Rs. 6,08,694/-; and (v) addition of Rs.3,34,246/- on account of estimated profit on undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246/-, but at the same time declined the assessee

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 20. As the assessee firm vide its cross objection has assailed the validity of the addition of Rs. 9.45 crores (supra) made by the AO on account of the alleged unaccounted sale consideration received by the assessee firm in cash, therefore, we deem it apposite to first deal with the said

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 20. As the assessee firm vide its cross objection has assailed the validity of the addition of Rs. 9.45 crores (supra) made by the AO on account of the alleged unaccounted sale consideration received by the assessee firm in cash, therefore, we deem it apposite to first deal with the said

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarvotham Care, having income from two units, one being a solar power generation unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA

PADMASRI TOWNSHIPS PVT LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed, in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

delay is neither intentional nor deliberate on account of the reasons beyond assessee’s control. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst.Katiji & Ors [167 ITR 471] (SC) holds that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all technical aspects and more so, when an assessee has proved satisfactorily that it was prevented from filing

PADMASRI TOWNSHIPS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed, in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

delay is neither intentional nor deliberate on account of the reasons beyond assessee’s control. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst.Katiji & Ors [167 ITR 471] (SC) holds that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all technical aspects and more so, when an assessee has proved satisfactorily that it was prevented from filing

NULAND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFIERS ,WARD -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nuland Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Ward 16(2) Pan:Aaccn5235D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Rajender Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8.5.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2011-12. 2. There Is A Delay Of 545 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid. After Hearing Both The Sides & Following The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Suo Moto Write Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020 Order Dated 10.01.2022 Wherein It Is Held That The Period From 15.3.2020 Till

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of undertaking infrastructure activities. It filed its return of income on 21.7.2011 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated

SREE ADITYA HOMES,RANGA REDDY DIST vs. ITO., WARD-3(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Aditya Homes, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aamcs1829G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Kiran Manohar Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2023

section 69A to the facts of the present case is supported by the following case laws. (1)Vinod Behari Jain vs. ITO: 117 ITD 220 (Del ITAT) (2)ITO vs. Naveen Kumar Agarwal: 25 SOT 253 (Del ITAT) (3) Smt. Renu Agarwal vs. ITO : 51 taxmann.com 207 (Agra ITAT).” 10. The assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), belatedly

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company M/s. ADP Private Limited with PAN of AAACW2655C is engaged in providing broad range of software development, maintenance & support services and Information Technology Enabled Services to its Associated Enterprises. It filed its Return of Income

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company M/s. ADP Private Limited with PAN of AAACW2655C is engaged in providing broad range of software development, maintenance & support services and Information Technology Enabled Services to its Associated Enterprises. It filed its Return of Income