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:

condonation of delay in filing Form 10IF, and that no relief of interest paid or payable under sections 234A, 234B

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

234A, 234B & 234C by CPC 8. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, deriving income from salary in India and outside India from his employment, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2021-22 on 31.01.2022, declaring total income of Rs.3

SALAHUDDIN MOHAMMED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1047/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Salahuddin Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Adgpm5833N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha K राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Salahuddin Mohammed, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 10.08.2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 231 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit

condonation of delay in filing the appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal merely due to a delay in filing the appeal without even considering the facts and merits of the case. 4 The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. A.O has erred in concluding

KAMISETTY ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condoned the 294-day delay. As the original assessment was ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the case was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "234A

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

SUJATHA KUMAR,BANASHANKARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1439/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year – 2016-2017 Mrs. Sujatha Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru – 560 085 Ward-1, Gudur-524101. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Pan Ahmpk3172C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Siddesh Nagraj Gaddi राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 97 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. “The order of the Ld.AO, insofar as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, and the weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld.AO's order is against the principle of natural

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

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

MOHAMMAD HABEEB UDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.08/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammad Habeeb Uddin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 11-2-323-Cross Bazaar, Ward-7(1), Ghat, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500004. Pan: Aaqph8462F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Dated 30.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

Section 115BBE of the Act without considering the legal arguments and factual evidence submitted by the Assessee. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed Ld. by AO initiating penalty u/s 271AAC and imputing interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above, it is humbly prayed that

VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234A and 234B of the Act at Rs. 2,57,508/- and Rs. 2,99,533/-; respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A), raising various grounds. 5. During the appellate proceedings, learned CIT(A) found that there was a delay of 166 days in filing

PRAMEELA PORIKA,SURYAPET vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-7(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.593/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Prameela Porika Vs. Acit Suryapet Circle 7(1) Pan:Almpp8561C Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Prameela Porika (“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 27.10.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 7

delay of 449 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within one month from the date of receipt of this order and filing proof of the same before the Registry. Subject to such compliance, the appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is also\ndismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in\nthe interest of justice.\nITA 31/Hyd/2021 (Revenue's Appeal)\n4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :\n1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in no adjudicating the grounds\nurged by the assessee on correctness of additions /\ndisallowance on merits.\n2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in adding an amount

MAHESHWAR REDDY KURA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal on 22.10.2021 challenging the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. There was a delay in filing the appeal, and the assessee sought condonation

DEEPTI SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,HINDUPUR vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI,

Bench: Us:

condoning the delay differs in facts and is not applicable to the case of the appellant. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) himself has accepted that an appeal having merits should not be thrown away merely because there is some delay in filing the appeal, however he has contradicted himself by rejecting the appeal on delay in filing without considering

SBPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.685/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sbpl Infrastructure Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaccs9014M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri M.Vijay Kumar,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 16/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13.02.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2014-15. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That Shri Manoj Sharma, Chief Financial Officer Of The Appellant Company, Who Was Entrusted With The Job Of Looking

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The ld. CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the addition without appreciation of facts and law. 2. The NFAC erred in upholding the order passed by the AO even though the AO rejected the claim

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs. BADRI MANJULA , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. ITA NO.780/HYD/2020 for AY 2009-10 ( by Revenue) ITA NO.126/HYD/2021 for AY 2009-10 (by Assessee) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of proceedings u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T.Act, the AO observed that