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

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused

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

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

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore, he had in Column no.15 of the memorandum of appeal i.e. “Form No.35”, requested for the condonation of the said delay. For the sake of clarity

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore, he had in Column no.15 of the memorandum of appeal i.e. “Form No.35”, requested for the condonation of the said delay. For the sake of clarity

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 1059 days, therefore, he had in Column no.15 of the memorandum of appeal i.e. “Form No.35”, requested for the condonation of the said delay. For the sake of clarity

PASUPULETI VENKATESHWARA RAO PASUPLETI BALAKRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO-WARD-12(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 72 days, citing ill health. The Assessing Officer added Rs.16 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A of the Act based on demonetization period deposits, which was partially confirmed by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.8,95,000/-.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

NARENDER REDDY MADADI,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, , WARANGAL.

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

72 days and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “ 1. The order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority confirming the order U/s 143(3) of the l. T. Act is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. The ld. First Appellate

NARENDER REDDY MADADI,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

72 days and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “ 1. The order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority confirming the order U/s 143(3) of the l. T. Act is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. The ld. First Appellate

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning inordinate delay of 3047 days. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii).” 7. Before us, ld.AR submitted that the learned lower authorities have decided the issue without considering the explanation offered by the Director of the assessee

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning inordinate delay of 3047 days. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii).” 7. Before us, ld.AR submitted that the learned lower authorities have decided the issue without considering the explanation offered by the Director of the assessee

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning inordinate delay of 3047 days. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii).” 7. Before us, ld.AR submitted that the learned lower authorities have decided the issue without considering the explanation offered by the Director of the assessee

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning inordinate delay of 3047 days. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii).” 7. Before us, ld.AR submitted that the learned lower authorities have decided the issue without considering the explanation offered by the Director of the assessee

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning inordinate delay of 3047 days. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2020 Paragraph 5(1)(ii).” 7. Before us, ld.AR submitted that the learned lower authorities have decided the issue without considering the explanation offered by the Director of the assessee

KRANTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHADRACHALLAM vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

condone such delay and therefore, upheld the disallowance of Rs.10,72,66,472/- and dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri DLS Narasimha Rao, CA, submitted that, the denial of exemption under Section

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

condone the delay of 72 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 16 ITA Nos 1016 and 1017 of 2025 Krishnakumar Manda ITA No.1016/Hyd/2025: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the order passed u/s 250 of the Income

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

condone the delay of 72 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 16 ITA Nos 1016 and 1017 of 2025 Krishnakumar Manda ITA No.1016/Hyd/2025: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the order passed u/s 250 of the Income

NAGARJUNA ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee-company is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

72,550/-. The assessee-company has filed appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Act before the learned CIT(A) on 20.03.2022. The appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) was belated by 108 days, for which, the assessee-company has not filed any petition for condonation of delay