DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

disallowance of Rs.45,90,60,000 are incorrect and cannot be sustained.” 2.1. Thereafter, assessee has filed the following additional grounds which read as under : “1. The ld.AO and ld.CIT(A) have erred in making addition / sustaining addition of Rs.27,09,00,000/- in respect of unsold balance lands of Ac.6.18 guntas to Sri S. Narayana Reddy and others. 2

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

disallowed the same.\n5. Ostensibly, the assessee during the course of the assessment\nproceedings came up with a new claim, wherein based on a revised\nstatement of computation of income that was filed with the A.O.\non 29.08.2010, it was claimed by him that as the agricultural land\nsituated at Village: Manchirevula was not a “capital asset” within\nthe meaning

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowability of FCCB related expenses, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to examine the issue of allowability or otherwise of the expenses, keeping in view the ratio of various decisions relied upon by both the parties and as discussed by the Tribunal in its order. Against the order of the ITAT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the addition of Rs.11,44,51,818/- (supra) made by the\nAO, which, thereafter, had been sustained by the CIT(A), is vacated.\nThe Grounds of appeal Nos.3.1 to 3.4 are allowed in terms o...

2), Hyderabad ['Ld. AO'] of\ninvoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act w.r.t. Specified\nBank Notes accepted by the Appellant, and of making addition of\nINR 564,100,000 under section 69A of the Act.\n2.2\nThat on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in not appreciating that

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "14A", "36(1)(va)", "2(24)(x)", "263", "143(3)", "142(1)", "139(1)", "43B", "10AA", "115JB", "249(4)(a)", "10(34)" ], "issues": "1. Whether disallowance

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB, which is due to reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of the appellant. 9. The assessee may add, alter or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB, which is due to reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of the appellant. 9. The assessee may add, alter or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

disallowance of 20% of the unexplained investment and therefore, we remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to file necessary explanation with respect to the amount of Rs.11,39,92,517/- and explain as to why this amount should not be added to the account of the assessee and in case

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution received by the assessee from the employees and deposited with the Government, after due date

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

249(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on account of the PF and ESI contribution received by the assessee from the employees and deposited with the Government, after due date

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F was to be re-examined in light of restrictions imposed by authorities.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 54F of the Act", "Section 153A of the Act", "Section 253 of the Act", "Section 249 of the Income Tax Act", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act", "Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" ], "issues": "1. Whether

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