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

2 of 33 ITA Nos 2050 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota Page 3 of 33 ITA Nos 2050 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota Page 4 of 33 ITA Nos 2050 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota Page 5 of 33 ITA Nos 2050 and 2079 of 2025 Paranjyothi Thota Page

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

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

section 50C of the Act. 6. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal”. 8. The appeals for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are filed after delay of 68 days. The assessee has filed separate affidavits for each

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. L.RAJALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

section 50C of the Act. 6. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal”. 8. The appeals for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are filed after delay of 68 days. The assessee has filed separate affidavits for each

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

section 50C of the Act. 6. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal”. 8. The appeals for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are filed after delay of 68 days. The assessee has filed separate affidavits for each

L.RAJALAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1678, 1679 & 1680/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Smt. L.Rajalakshmi, Hyderabad अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Afgpr3011K …..

section 50C of the Act. 6. The assessee may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal”. 8. The appeals for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are filed after delay of 68 days. The assessee has filed separate affidavits for each

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

2 -: petition/affidavit. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned 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

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

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

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 to the reasons given in the petitions, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. It emerges at the outset that

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

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

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 to the reasons given in the petitions, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. It emerges at the outset that

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

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

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 to the reasons given in the petitions, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. It emerges at the outset that

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

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

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 to the reasons given in the petitions, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. It emerges at the outset that

LATE M.P.VIMALA BAI, REP. BY L/R. M.P.JAY ANANTHA SWAMY.,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal, which is admitted and being heard on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld.AR brought to our notice that notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act [Act] dt.30-03-2010 was issued and served on the assessee. Shri M.P.Jay Anantha Swamy is the legal representative, appeared before the Assessing Officer (AO) and submitted that

BATHULA VENUGOPAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2011-12

2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 1 day in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and an affidavit in support of condonation of the delay was filed by the assessee. Taking into consideration the fact that the delay is only one day, the delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case

KAMLESH KONODIA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order dismissing the appeal without giving any further opportunity of being heard after the specified date. 2. On the facts

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

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 Rao Bodapati delay. After discussing with the learned DR, the delay of 16 days

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.

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

KAREN JUDALINE GODFREY,AUSTRALIA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

2 -: ITA Nos. 1697/Hyd/19 & 248/Hyd/20 petition/affidavit. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore. 3. The assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeals challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making long term capital gain addition of Rs.66,86,575/- each, after invoking Section 50C

NATALIE MERIA GODFREY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

2 -: ITA Nos. 1697/Hyd/19 & 248/Hyd/20 petition/affidavit. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore. 3. The assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeals challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making long term capital gain addition of Rs.66,86,575/- each, after invoking Section 50C

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.:

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 that are presented relating to the arguments entered into in 2006 and not considering the subsequent events and thereby erred