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

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

Section 5. 9 Kumud Bajaj vs. ITO The Hon’ble SC in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India (UOl) and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330 held that the High Courts, while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant

NIRAJITA MITRA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoned the small delay of four days in filing Form No.68 as mandated by section 270AA for grant of immunity from levy of penalty u/s 270A. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual has filed her return of income on 17.07.2017 for A.Y. 2017-18 admitting a total taxable income of Rs.95

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

delay of 632 days. Accordingly, she prayed that the condonation petition be rejected and the appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation. The Ld. DR in support of their submission relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Delhi Vs. UOI, Civil Appeal Nos. 9488-9489 of 2019 dated 17/12/2019

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MUTTAM,KADAPA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

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 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/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 Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

delay of 632 days. Accordingly, she prayed that the condonation petition be rejected and the appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation. The Ld. DR in support of their submission relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Delhi Vs. UOI, Civil Appeal Nos. 9488-9489 of 2019 dated 17/12/2019

M/S DEEPIKA INFRATECH PVT LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condoning the inordinate delay of 653 days, for which no cogent reason has been given. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The assessee has pleaded before the CIT(A) and before us that he has filed appeal before

DEEPIKA INFRATECH PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condoning the inordinate delay of 653 days, for which no cogent reason has been given. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The assessee has pleaded before the CIT(A) and before us that he has filed appeal before

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S DEEPIKA INFRATECH PVT LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condoning the inordinate delay of 653 days, for which no cogent reason has been given. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The assessee has pleaded before the CIT(A) and before us that he has filed appeal before

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

ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. SCI IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Sci It Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward – 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 7864 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee company, engaged in software development and IT enabled services, filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 on 29/09/2011 admitting income of Rs. SC IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2,97,885/- after claiming 10A deduction

NARESH KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 10 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.547/Hyd/2025 3 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who had not filed any return of income under section 139(1) of the Income

NEERAJ KUMAR AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ITO v. Volkart Brothers and Others, 82 ITR 50 (S.C.) with regard to mistake apparent from record that qualities for an action

THE CUMBUM CO-OPERATIVE TOWN BANK LIMITED ,PRAKASAM vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (I&CI), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Cumbum Co-Operative Town Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Bank Limited, Of Income Tax (Intelligence Cumbum & Criminal Investigation), Prakasam District. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabat3057A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.08.2022

section 271FA r.w.s. 274 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) raising the following grounds : 2 “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous about the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred for not considering the location of the Appellant Bank and efforts made by them

RAASI REFRACTORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

delay is accordingly condoned. 4. As regards the merits of the case, brief facts are that the assessee company, which is in the business of manufacture of refractory bricks and mortar, e-filed its return if income on 30.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs.16,16,39,883/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and during the assessment proceedings

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condonation of delay in filing Form-10B before the Pr. CIT was also rejected by the concerned Pr. CIT u/sec.119(2)(b) of the Act. 4. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the Assessee has submitted that that the assessee filed the return of income within the due date as extended by the CBDT up-to 07.11.2022 along with

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condonation of delay in filing Form-10B before the Pr. CIT was also rejected by the concerned Pr. CIT u/sec.119(2)(b) of the Act. 4. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the Assessee has submitted that that the assessee filed the return of income within the due date as extended by the CBDT up-to 07.11.2022 along with

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KHAMMAM vs. BHARAT AUTO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, KHAMMAM

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

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

section 144 r.w.s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 40 days. It has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone