HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

condonation of delay involved in filing of an appeal. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y 2016-17 on 31.03.2018 disclosing an income of Rs.6,43,030/-. Thereafter, the original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 24-12-2018, determining

MURALI MOHAN VISWANADHUNI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

condone the delay of 32 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and to admit the appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not raising any objection on the delay in presenting the appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal as required as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Mela Ram & sons

LATE RAJESHAM RAGI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Vs. Pin – 505 001. Telangana. Karimnagar. Pan Aaxpr4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Rv Nageshwar Sharma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law in as much the notice initiating the proceedings were issued on a wrong person. The appellant had raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2.1. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 74 days. The appellant / Revenue has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In this connection, the appellant has filed an affidavit for condonation of the said delay wherein

SATYA PRAKASH REDDY AEDUDODLA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2010-11 Satya Prakash Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aedudodla, Ward-14(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Acppr 9805 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business filed his return of income on 20/08/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 41,370/-. Initially the return was processed

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

54F in the AY 2013-14.\n21. The assessee may add, alter, or modify or substitute any other\npoints to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of\nhearing of appeal.”\n3.\nThe Revenue has filed the C.O. with delay of 254 days, for\nwhich they have filed one combined condonation petition in the form

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(I/C), HYDERABAD vs. MADHU KUMAR PATEL , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal by the Revenue as well as the C

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Madhu Kumar Patel (International Taxation-2), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 343/Hyd/2021) Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. Dy.Cit (International Hyderabad Taxation2), Pan:Bvdpp3797G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.03.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal As Well As The C.O Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided In This Common Order.

delay in filing of the appeal by the Revenue and the C.O. by the assessee are condoned and the appeal as well as the C.O are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Non-Resident and a resident of the United Kingdom. He has not filed his return of income

MS. NANDINI VISHWANATH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive ground in both these appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action declining Section 54F

(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

54F as claimed by the assessee. 4. The assessee craves leave to add and or alter any of the above grounds.” 4 ITA.Nos.601, 602 & 603/Hyd./2022 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay

(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM, REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

54F as claimed by the assessee. 4. The assessee craves leave to add and or alter any of the above grounds.” 4 ITA.Nos.601, 602 & 603/Hyd./2022 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay

(LATE) LAXMAN RAO BANAPURAM REP BY L/R B RAMA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

54F as claimed by the assessee. 4. The assessee craves leave to add and or alter any of the above grounds.” 4 ITA.Nos.601, 602 & 603/Hyd./2022 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed petitions for condonation of the delay

P. SRINIVASA REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. DHARMA REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. DHARMA REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. SRINIVASA REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. JANARDHAN REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. JANARDHAN REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein

P. RAVINDER REDDY (HUF), HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahublock Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned therefore. 3. Learned authorised representative submitted at the outset that all the instant entire batch of thirteen cases raises identical substantive grounds on law as well as facts. And :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 388, 389, 390 & 391/Hyd/2016 that the only difference is that seven of the appeals herein