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

50,000/- vide Page 8 of 33 ITA Nos 2050 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota document No.3891/2011 dated 09/08/2011, whereas the market value of the property for the purpose of stamp duty was at Rs.83,49,000/-, which attracts the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Further, as per the sale deed, the assessee is having a share

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

MAHATHI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

50,000/- besides the costs of Rs. 500/-. Under those facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that, when the delay was on account of inaction or lack of advice of the counsel, then it is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In the present case, although the assessee pleads that, the delay

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

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

In the result, three appeals i

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.\n12.1.\n12.2.\n12. Appellant

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

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

condone the delay of 868 days in filing the appeal and admit the same. 12 ITA.No.154/Hyd./2021 Solemnly affirmed and signed before me on this the Pusa Nanda Kumar 15 day of March, 2021. Deponent” 4.1. In addition to the affidavit, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has explained the cause of delay that his Counsel

RAHUL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rahul Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aifpa2046P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sadanala Srinath, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee, assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 10.01.2021 admitting total income of Rs. 37,38,670/-. On credible information that assessee and one Chetan Agarwal are regularly conducting dabba trading

AGRICUTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee\nare dismissed

condonation petitions along with affidavits\nexplaining the reasons for delay. Since the reasons stated in all\nthe affidavits are identical, for the sake of completeness, we\nconsider the affidavit filed in ITA No.1199/Hyd/2025 to\nreproduce as under:\nभारतीय गैर न्यायिक\nपचास\nरुपये\nFIFTY\nRUPEES\nरु.50\nRs.50\nसत्यमेव जयते\nINDIA\nINDIA NON JUDICIAL\n३ तेलंगाना TELANGANA\nTran Id: 250922151653772120\nDate

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon