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

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

house property to the assessee. Therefore, all these aspects regarding the status of the land in pursuance to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as applicability of Doctrine of “lex non cogit ad impossibilia” and “impotentia excusat legem” are to be examined and considered by the learned CIT(A) while passing the fresh Order

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

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

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

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

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

KAMISETTY ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condoning the 294-day delay,\ndespite the Appellant providing a bona fide and unintentional cause. By adopting a conservative\napproach, the CIT(A) denied the Appellant an opportunity to be heard on the merits, disregarding\nthe settled legal principle that appeals should be decided on merits, not on technicalities,\nespecially when the delay does not prejudice the Revenue

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