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

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 01 year 07 months (594 days), therefore, he had declined to condone the same in exercise of the discretion vested with him under sub-section (3) of section 249

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

section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

VASAVI CLUB,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay was taken up first. 5.1 The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 20.04.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed on 08.08.2023 against the order served on 20.04.2021. As per the provisions of Section 249

MALIREDDI SRINATH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HDYERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

section 249 of the I.T. Act. Hence, the delay in filing of appeal more than 18 months cannot be accepted. 2.23 Hence, in view of these facts and on the strength of the judicial decisions referred on the pre pages the delay in filing the appeal does not merit condonation

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

condoning the same.\n\n14. Apropos the impugned order before us, we find that the CIT(A)\nhad dismissed the appeal by declining to exercise the discretion\nvested him under sub-section (3) of section 249 of the Act and not\ncondoning the delay

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

249 of the Income Tax Act", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act", "Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED CHENNARAOPET,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

Bench: Us:

condoning the above delay has been uploaded till date. 2. Hence, you are given last opportunity to rectify the above defect in your appeal with relevant supporting documents by due date of compliance i.e. on or before on 17.09.2024, failing which your appeal may be rejected as per provisions of Section 249

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

delay, therefore, the CIT(A) in exercise of the discretion vested with him under sub- section (3) of Section 249 of the Act had rightly refused to condone

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

delay, therefore, the CIT(A) in exercise of the discretion vested with him under sub- section (3) of Section 249 of the Act had rightly refused to condone

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

delay, therefore, the CIT(A) in exercise of the discretion vested with him under sub- section (3) of Section 249 of the Act had rightly refused to condone

ARYA VYSYA TRUST,VIKARABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

Bench: Us:

condone the delay by refraining from exercising the discretion that was otherwise vested with him under sub-section (3) of section 249

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 of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing

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 of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing

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 of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing

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 of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing

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 of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing