NAFEES SULTANA,HYEDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD.

Bench: Us:

House Property". 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal without condoning the delay

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. SABBINENI SURENDRA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Sabbineni Surendra, Income Tax, No. 512/R, Road No.29, Central Circle-2(2), Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqps 3461 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

property, there was no liquid cash after payment of tax relating to six preceding years. He submitted that all the relevant facts were submitted by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay and the same was considered by the CIT(A) before condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal. Therefore, according to him, the order

PARLAPALLI KARUNAKAR REDDY,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and had not filed return of income. In the case of the assessee original assessment has been 4 ITA.No.667/Hyd./2025 completed u/sec.143

GNANASEKARAN MANIKANDAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

house property at Rs.1,50,000/-.The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC on 11/07/2010 at a total income of Rs.43,66,470/-. Against the said order of the CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A) on 06/11/2024 i.,e. after a delay of almost 14 years. Though

GNANASEKARAN MANIKANDAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

house property at Rs.1,50,000/-.The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC on 11/07/2010 at a total income of Rs.43,66,470/-. Against the said order of the CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A) on 06/11/2024 i.,e. after a delay of almost 14 years. Though

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

house property at Rs.1,50,000/-.The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC on 11/07/2010 at a total income of Rs.43,66,470/-. Against the said order of the CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A) on 06/11/2024 i.,e. after a delay of almost 14 years. Though

VEERAPANENI CHENNAKESHAVA RAO ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

condone the delay. 4. The Grounds raised by assessee in this appeal are as under: “1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is erroneous, illegal and held contrary to the facts of the instant case. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer without giving any further opportunity

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

VIDYUT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1878/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vidyut Employees Co- The Dcit, Operative Housing Vs. Circle-6(1), Society, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pin – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaaav5182H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

delay condoned by the Tribunal, this ground become infructuous. 8. Ground nos.3 to 5 is regarding validity of the reopening of the assessment by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [in short “JAO”] without following the procedure for Faceless Assessment as per sec.151A r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. Since this issue is pending adjudication before

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1658/Hyd/2025

condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the reason of certain circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and the CIT(A) ought to have extended the principles of natural justice. 3b) The learned CIT(A) ought to have taken a favourable interpretation of the benevolent provisions of section 249(3) of Act and ought to have contended

HITEC CYBERSPAZIO LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

property, held the same as the assessee’s unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 21/03/2024, determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs. 184,02,01,039/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before

THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

delay is condoned therefore. :- 2 -: 3. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal pleads that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in declining set-off of net operations loss of Rs.9,11,16,126/- against income from house property

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

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

condone the delay and allow the C.O. for\nadjudication.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual,\nfiled its Return of Income (“ROI\") for A.Y. 2013-14 on 5.3.2015\nadmitting total income of Rs.3,21,052/-. The Learned Assessing\nOfficer (\"Ld. AO\") was on receipt of information that the assessee\nhad sold land during

SAMPATHI VENKATA SUBBAIAH,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

condone the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-2013. As per the information received from the ADIT (Investigation Unit)-4(4), Tirupati

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

house-wife and senior citizen, we 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

ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SUDHEER RAAVI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, derived income from business, house property

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

delay in filing this appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond their control. Hence, the same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee who is an individual filed her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 admitting a total income