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

condonation of delay. Page 27 of 33 ITA Nos 2050 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we uphold the order of the FAA and decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands disallowed.” 14. In this view of the matter

RAIN CEMENTS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

269. It is however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condonation of huge delay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un- admitted. 11. In the result, appeal ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017 is dismissed

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

delay, does not come under\n\"sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge\ndelay a 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are of the considered view that, the appeal\nfiled by the appellant is not maintainable and, therefore, the\nappeal filed by the appellant/assessee is dismissed as un-\nadmitted.\n\n11.\nIn the result

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

THE ZOOS AND PARKS AUTHORITY OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 05 appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 80G under its new PAN. But it has been filing returns claiming exemption as per incumbent Zoos Authority of Andhra Pradesh registration as the assessee was under 3 ITA.No.114 to 118/Hyd./2025 bonafide impression that the exemption obtained by the incumbent authority holds good. However, the exemption was not allowed by the Assessing officer-CPC, Bengaluru and passed

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay and admit all the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The grounds raised by the respective assessees in all the captioned appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.300/Hyd/2023 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in facts and law while passing