RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals

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

C) (pages of (A) (B) Paper Book) 1 M/s 102,07,15,960 1020,71,59,600 479,52,00,000 296,80,61,640 244,38,97,96 Obulap (151) (151) 0 uram Mining Co. (P) Ltd. 2 M/s 9,24,20,000 92,42,00,000 8,00,000 65,64,00,000 26,70,00,000 Kireeti

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

C) (pages of (A) (B) Paper Book) 1 M/s 102,07,15,960 1020,71,59,600 479,52,00,000 296,80,61,640 244,38,97,96 Obulap (151) (151) 0 uram Mining Co. (P) Ltd. 2 M/s 9,24,20,000 92,42,00,000 8,00,000 65,64,00,000 26,70,00,000 Kireeti

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

6.\n\"In N. Balakrishna (supra), it was reiterated that the\nword 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction\nand acceptability of the explanation is the criteria, and not\nthe length of delay as such by observing as under:\n\"In every case of delay there can be some lapse on the\npart of the litigant concerned. That alone

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is to be construed liberally, such liberal approach cannot be extended to cases where the delay is the result of inaction, negligence, or lack of bona fides on the part of the litigant. In the present case, the explanation furnished by the assessee does not inspire confidence. The demise

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage

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

253 ITR 798held as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 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 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

253 ITR 798 (S.C) (d) Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987 ( (1987) 2 SCC 107; AIR 1987 SC 1353; 1987 (2) SCR 387.) 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that it is a case of negligence on the part of the assessee

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 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 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

253 ITR 798 (S.C) (d) Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987 ( (1987) 2 SCC 107; AIR 1987 SC 1353; 1987 (2) SCR 387.) 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that it is a case of negligence on the part of the assessee

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 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 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

253 ITR 798 (S.C) (d) Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987 ( (1987) 2 SCC 107; AIR 1987 SC 1353; 1987 (2) SCR 387.) 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that it is a case of negligence on the part of the assessee

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

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:

condone the delay therein involved. On further appeal, it was the claim of the assessee that as it had assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by 12 ITO vs. Shiva Kumar Thota the AO under Section 153C of the Act, which was purely an issue of law, therefore, there was no justification on the part

JASPER AUTO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 0196P (Appellant) (Respondent)

c)The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the transfer of part of the assessee's assets as "slump sale" and that the provisions of section 50B of the Act would attract. (d) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale of assets of "Passengers Car Business" of the assessee is not in the nature

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD vs. ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay stands condoned therefore. 3. We now advert to the Revenue’s identical sole substantive ground challenging correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting Section u/s.271(1)(c) penalty(ies) of Rs.2,51,40,989/- & Rs.2,40,11,400/- imposed in the Assessing Officer’s order(s) both dt.29-09-2016; respectively. 4. It transpires during the course of hearing