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

50C of the Act. Further, as per the sale deed, the assessee is having a share of 1/4th of the property, as such the assessee’s share in the sale proceeds is 1/4th of the property which works out to Rs.8,87,500/-and the corresponding market value for the purpose of stamp duty is Rs.20

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

PADMAVATHI REDDY GADDAM ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

delay is condoned therefore. 3. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The order of the learned First Appellate Authority is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2.The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the property in dispute owned by the State Government

VIJAYA LAKSHMI MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

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

1) involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard all four assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. All these assessees’ appeals are barred by limitation by 18 days. They have moved condonation applications explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

RAMESH MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

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

1) involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard all four assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. All these assessees’ appeals are barred by limitation by 18 days. They have moved condonation applications explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

MURALI KRISHNA MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

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

1) involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard all four assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. All these assessees’ appeals are barred by limitation by 18 days. They have moved condonation applications explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

NAVEEN MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

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

1) involving proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]; respectively. Heard all four assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. 2. All these assessees’ appeals are barred by limitation by 18 days. They have moved condonation applications explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

UMA MAHESWARA RAO BODAPATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 292/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Uma Maheshwara Rao Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Bodapati, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Atnpb5755D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

1 of 12 ITA No 292 of 2024 Uma Maheshwara Rao Bodapati Page 2 of 12 ITA No 292 of 2024 Uma Maheshwara Rao Bodapati 3. There is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has explained the reasons for such Page 3 of 12 ITA No 292 of 2024 Uma Maheshwara

MOHD MUKHTAR ALI KHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -9(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellants By : None. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 18.10.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : These three assessees’ as many appeals for Assessment Year 2011-12 arise against the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s separate order dt.21.08.2019 passed in case No.0169/CIT(A)-7/2018-19

FATIMA KHATOON,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -9(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellants By : None. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 18.10.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : These three assessees’ as many appeals for Assessment Year 2011-12 arise against the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s separate order dt.21.08.2019 passed in case No.0169/CIT(A)-7/2018-19

MURTUZA ALI KHAN MOHAMMED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -9(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellants By : None. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 18.10.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : These three assessees’ as many appeals for Assessment Year 2011-12 arise against the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s separate order dt.21.08.2019 passed in case No.0169/CIT(A)-7/2018-19

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.496 & 497/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward – 11(5), Hyderabad. Pan : Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm:

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the ld.PCIT u/s 263 of the Act, assessee is now in appeal before us. 9. Before us, the ld. AR drew our attention to the original order passed by the AO, specifically highlighting Paras 3 and 4 of the order, which

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.496 & 497/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward – 11(5), Hyderabad. Pan : Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm:

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the ld.PCIT u/s 263 of the Act, assessee is now in appeal before us. 9. Before us, the ld. AR drew our attention to the original order passed by the AO, specifically highlighting Paras 3 and 4 of the order, which

DEVAKI KAMARAJAN ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Devaki Kamarajan, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of No.19-7-97-A, Rc Road, Income Tax, Tirupati – 517501, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Afqpk7350A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya - Ar Revenue By: Shri Ravi Kiran - Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tirupati’S Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed In Case No.U/S.263/Pcit/Tpt/2018-19 Involving Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961( In Short “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

1 2. Learned counsel has submitted at the outset that delay in question of 313 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond assessee’s control and more particularly, it is only case of lack of communication between the assessee; a very old lady, her auditor the authorized counsel. The same are unrebutted from the Revenue

NALAMATI SEA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahua.Y. 2012-13 Nalamati Sea Foods Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcn 1440 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/5/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/6/2021 Order

1) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant. (2) (i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the application of the provisions of section 50C of the IT Act and consequent addition made to the capital gain of 11,40,000/-. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

DR.MUMTAZ ALI KHAN AFZAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraay: 2010-11 Dr. Mumtaz Ali Khan Afzal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2), Pan: Aeupk 2328 H Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) confirming the action of the AO adopting value by invoking provisions of section 50C for computation of capital gains is not only erroneous both on facts and in law but is contrary to the principles laid down by the judicial forums. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the facts

VENUGOPAL REDDY GELIVI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

1) of the Act, dated\n20.01.2023 was nor complied with by the assessee. Considering the\naforesaid facts, the A.O. was constrained to proceed with and frame\nthe assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act.\nDuring the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O.\nobserved that the assessee, who is an NRI, had, along with his wife

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

50C of IT Act\n(Rs.63,45,000+ Rs.35,24,000)\nLess: Indexed Cost of acquisition of part land sold\n(Rs.5,81,000 (2.36/5.00)*(200/301)\nLong term capital gains\nRs.98,69,000\nRs. 1,82,314\nRs.96,86,686\nIn view of the above, Long-Term Capital gain of Rs.96,86,686/- on\nsale on non-agricultural land

SIMON PAVAN KUMAR MOSES,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANG AL

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

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the\nappeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an\nindividual and has filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. The\nassessment has been subsequently re-opened under Section 147\nof the Income