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

97,970/- invoking section 68 of the Act ignoring the original remand report dated 17/3/2015. 2) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 15,99,60,041/- on account of notional gain arising out of the foreign exchange fluctuation relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.\n12.1.\n12.2.\n12. Appellant

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

SANGAM CHARITABLE ORGANISATION,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

97 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal. We are satisfied with the reasons explained the assessee which prevented the assessee in not filing the appeals before the Tribunal are seems to be genuine and bonafide by taking note of chronology of dates and events furnished by the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

SANGAM CHARITABLE ORGANISATION,K V RANGA REDDY vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

97 days in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal. We are satisfied with the reasons explained the assessee which prevented the assessee in not filing the appeals before the Tribunal are seems to be genuine and bonafide by taking note of chronology of dates and events furnished by the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

QADEER AHMED MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 249(3) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ without adjudicating the issues on merits. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of for statistical purposes. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel

SUJATHA KUMAR,BANASHANKARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1439/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year – 2016-2017 Mrs. Sujatha Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru – 560 085 Ward-1, Gudur-524101. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Pan Ahmpk3172C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Siddesh Nagraj Gaddi राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 97 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. “The order of the Ld.AO, insofar as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, and the weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld.AO's order is against the principle of natural

SALAHUDDIN MOHAMMED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1047/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Salahuddin Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Adgpm5833N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha K राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Salahuddin Mohammed, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 10.08.2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 231 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit

section 250 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have accepted the condonation of delay in filing the appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal merely due to a delay in filing the appeal without even considering the facts and merits of the case

SHAIK AFSAR HUSSAIN,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 8 Shaik Afsar Hussain 5. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in treating

MUMTAZ ALI MOHD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 12/05/2023 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.2,97,84,910/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee despite having been given 5 opportunities, had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter holding a conviction that

MOHAN REDDY GADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

97,824/-\nand divided the said cost of land from super built up area received\nby the appellant at 9351 SFT and arrived at cost of acquisition of\nland at Rs.160 per SFT. The A.O. further observed that the\nappellant has sold two flats admeasuring 2190 SFT and thus\narrived at cost of acquisition of Rs.3,50,400/- by adopting

SRI DURGA AUTO MOTIVES,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

condoned the delay, admit the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits, instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information, viz., (i) that the assessee firm during the demonetization period, i.e., 09/11/2016 to 30/11/2016 had carried

SATYANARAYANA MURTHY KANCHARLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2122/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Satyanarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Murthy Kancharla Ward 12 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Alypk6305P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri D Praveen, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 8 ITA No 2122 of 2025 Satyanarayana Murthy Kancharla 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 3 of 8 ITA No 2122 of 2025 Satyanarayana Murthy Kancharla 6. The brief facts of the case

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

97,824/-\nand divided the said cost of land from super built up area received\nby the appellant at 9351 SFT and arrived at cost of acquisition of\nland at Rs.160 per SFT. The A.O. further observed that the\nappellant has sold two flats admeasuring 2190 SFT and thus\narrived at cost of acquisition of Rs.3,50,400/- by adopting

ASHWITHA REDDY BADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor the A

97,824/-\nand divided the said cost of land from super built up area received\nby the appellant at 9351 SFT and arrived at cost of acquisition of\nland at Rs.160 per SFT. The A.O. further observed that the\nappellant has sold two flats admeasuring 2190 SFT and thus\narrived at cost of acquisition of Rs.3,50,400/- by adopting

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

97,824/-\nand divided the said cost of land from super built up area received\nby the appellant at 9351 SFT and arrived at cost of acquisition of\nland at Rs.160 per SFT. The A.O. further observed that the\nappellant has sold two flats admeasuring 2190 SFT and thus\narrived at cost of acquisition of Rs.3,50,400/- by adopting