ITAT Hyderabad Bench

10,989 judgments

GATTU RAVINDER,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 213/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed11/6/2025AY 2011-12

us : "1. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts while sustaining the addition of Rs.7595940 for the assessment year 2011-12 as Long-Term Capital Gain without giving an opportunity of being heard and without reviewing the contents of the sale deed and nature of Land.

VENKATA SUBBA REDDY METTUPALLI,SECUNDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-15(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 400/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10/6/2025AY 2017-18

us: “1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order is erroneous in facts and law. 2. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer ex-party without giving further opportunity 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment order without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer without giving proper opportunity, is ex

PARIJATHAM RAVULA,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 31/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10/6/2025AY 2017-18

SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

PRASADAM FOUNDATION,KADAPA vs ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

ITA 246/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed10/6/2025AY 2025-26

SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

PRASADAM FOUNDATION,KADAPA vs ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

ITA 245/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed10/6/2025AY 2025-26

SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

RAJSHEKAR YADHAR,MANDANAPALLE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADANAPALLE

ITA 130/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed10/6/2025AY 2016-17

SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE -1, HYDERABAD

ITA 388/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed10/6/2025AY 2012-13

the Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bangalore (for short “DRP”). The DRP, vide its order u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dt.25.10.2016 after considering the objections rejected the adjustment of Rs.7.25 crores (supra) suggested by the TPO and directed the A.O. to make an addition of Rs.10,21,789/- towards shortfall of ALP adjustment by charging 5% mark up on the reimbursement of expenses transactions. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13), dated 29.11.2016 f