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

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non- resident and filed his return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 29.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs.8,29,23,240/-. The assessment has been

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s identical impugned revision directions terming the corresponding reassessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue read as under : ITA Nos.232 to 235/Hyd/2021 4. Learned authorized representative invited our attention to assessees’s detailed Paper Book running

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s identical impugned revision directions terming the corresponding reassessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue read as under : ITA Nos.232 to 235/Hyd/2021 4. Learned authorized representative invited our attention to assessees’s detailed Paper Book running

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s identical impugned revision directions terming the corresponding reassessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue read as under : ITA Nos.232 to 235/Hyd/2021 4. Learned authorized representative invited our attention to assessees’s detailed Paper Book running

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s identical impugned revision directions terming the corresponding reassessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue read as under : ITA Nos.232 to 235/Hyd/2021 4. Learned authorized representative invited our attention to assessees’s detailed Paper Book running

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

section 115JB of the IT Act. (6) Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Ld. AR submitted first of all before us that there is a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay wherein

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.

condone the delay of 313 days in foregoing facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that the PCIT herein has erred in law and on facts in framing the corresponding regular assessment dated 31.12.2016 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue, we note that he has held

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.:

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had failed to furnish his return of income for the AY 2010-11. Subsequently it was revealed that the assessee has sold a property

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

condoned.\n5.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of\nappeal:\n1. “The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is not\ncorrect either on facts or in law and in both.\n2. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in disposing off the appeal\nwithout giving adequate opportunity, considering the fact that all\nthe notices were issued

RAO PAMGANAMAMULA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-II), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

delay is condoned and the appeal is decided as under: 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a non- resident, did not file any return of income for the A.Y 2010-11. As per the information received from the Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Hyderabad, the assessee was the owner of the property, Page

RASUN EXPORTS PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rasun Exports Pvt. Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O. Katrapati & Associate, Circle – 3(1), 1-1-298/2/B/3, Sowbhagya Hyderabad. Avenue Apartments, 1St Floor, Ashok Nagar, Street No.1 – 500020, Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan : Aabcr0773P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad, Ca Appeared For Shri Ka Sai Prasad, Ca. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.07.2024 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

5.. as against Rs.12,70,50,000/- as certified by the SRO. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting Rs. 17,95,50,000/-, as the value under Sec. 50C of the Act. 3. The Lower authorities failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessing

PADMA POLEMONI ,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2011-12 Padma Polemoni Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shamshabad. Ward-8(2), Pan: Exupp 0048 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu For Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10309/2018-19/Cit(A)-2, Dated 01/10/2019 Passed U/S.144 R.W.S147 & U/S. 250(6) Of The Act For The A.Y.: 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Six Grounds In Her Appeal & They Are Extracted Herein Below For Reference:- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The It Act Is Arbitrary & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Give Proper Opportunity To Represent The Appeal. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Property In Adverse Position Was Sold For The Prevailing

section 50C are not applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,22,150/- adopting the sale consideration U/s. 50C of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled legal position that in case of dispute regarding valuation an assessment making addition

POLEMONI JAGGADEESH KUMAR ,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2011-12 Polemoni Jagadeesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shamshabad. Ward-8(2), Pan: Ddppk 7905 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu For Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri A. Venkata Rao, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10211/2018-19/Cit(A)-5, Dated 01/10/2019 Passed U/S.144 R.W.S147 & U/S. 250(6) Of The Act For The A.Y.: 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Six Grounds In His Appeal & They Are Extracted Herein Below For Reference:- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The It Act Is Arbitrary & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Give Proper Opportunity To Represent The Appeal. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Property In Adverse Position Was Sold For The Prevailing

section 50C are not applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,22,150/- adopting the sale consideration U/s. 50C of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled legal position that in case of dispute regarding valuation an assessment making addition

POLOMANI JANGAIAH,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2011-12 Polomani Jangaiah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shamshabad. Ward-8(2), Pan: Boepj 4903 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu For Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10320/2018-19/Cit(A)-2, Dated 01/10/2019 Passed U/S.144 R.W.S147 & U/S. 250(6) Of The Act For The A.Y.: 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Six Grounds In His Appeal & They Are Extracted Herein Below For Reference:- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The It Act Is Arbitrary & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Give Proper Opportunity To Represent The Appeal. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Property In Adverse Position Was Sold For The Prevailing

section 50C are not applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,66,450/- adopting the sale consideration U/s. 50C of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled legal position that in case of dispute regarding valuation an assessment making addition

ARUNA POLEMONI ,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2011-12 Aruna Polemoni, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shamshabad. Ward-8(2), Pan: Edfpp 2783 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu For Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri A. Venkata Rao, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10307/2018-19/Cit(A)-2, Dated 01/10/2019 Passed U/S.144 R.W.S147 & U/S. 250(6) Of The Act For The A.Y.: 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Six Grounds In Her Appeal & They Are Extracted Herein Below For Reference:- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The It Act Is Arbitrary & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Give Proper Opportunity To Represent The Appeal. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Property In Adverse Position Was Sold For The Prevailing

section 50C are not applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,22,150/- adopting the sale consideration U/s. 50C of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled legal position that in case of dispute regarding valuation an assessment making addition

RAJU POLEMONI,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2) , HYERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2011-12 Raju Polemoni, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(2), Pan: Eyspp 6897 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu For Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10374/2018-19/Cit(A)-2, Dated 01/10/2019 Passed U/S.144 R.W.S147 & U/S. 250(6) Of The Act For The A.Y.: 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Six Grounds In His Appeal & They Are Extracted Herein Below For Reference:- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The It Act Is Arbitrary & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Give Proper Opportunity To Represent The Appeal. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Property In Adverse Position Was Sold For The Prevailing

section 50C are not applicable to the facts of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,22,150/- adopting the sale consideration U/s. 50C of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled legal position that in case of dispute regarding valuation an assessment making addition