IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and observing that only the expenditure mentioned u/s 24 is to be allowed, the AO observed that the interest portion of Rs.16,08,014 is not allowable. Further, he also disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.18,50,219/-. 5. Further, the AO also noticed that the assessee has advanced interest free loans amounting to Rs.1

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

house property using the above sale consideration. We have also been informed that they have deposited the entire sale consideration in the Long- Term Capital Gains Account Scheme with Andhra Bank MLA’s colony Branch, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and also claimed exemption U/s. 54 in the return filed for the AY 2012-13. We are herewith enclosing

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

TDS-192 2. The assesse has filed return of income declaring income from salary (Gross salary Rs.9,04,142). Further, the assesse has declared loss from 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

TDS u/s 194IA. 12.1 Thus, the appellant has factually demonstrated, that the entire sale consideration received on sale of plot was reinvested in a residential property, though the legal formalities of getting the property in the appellant’s name did not take place within the time stipulated u/s 54F. Here arises a legal complication. 12.2 The heading of section

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

TDS under Section 194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can not be extended the activities of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

TDS under Section 194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can not be extended the activities of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

TDS under Section 194C is applicable to payments made by broadcasting and telecasting companies (including production of programs for broadcasting or telecasting) to advertising agencies and payments by advertising agencies to media owners (such as Doordarshan, newspapers, etc.) and it can not be extended the activities of the assessee. 14. It was submitted that after the issuance of the circular

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

house property’, the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income’, for the reason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and maintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project approved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA

GANDRA VENKATA RAMANA REDDY,WARANGAL vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(I/C), WARANGAL

In the result appeal is considered partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Gandra Venkata Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ramana Reddy, Income Tax, Circle -1 Warangal. (I/C), Warangal Pan – Aiepg9935A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.V. Chalamaiah Revenue By : Shri M. Naveen Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2018 Order Per B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,76,555/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act On The Reason That Assessee Has Not Declared The Rental Income On The Property. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Leading To The Penalty Are That Assessee Was An Mla & Was Also Carrying Business Of Maintaining A Petrol Bunk & Transport Business In Individual Capacity. In The Course Of Scrutiny Proceedings, A.O Noticed That There Was A Rental Income To The Tune Of Rs. 8,95,000/- From M/S Unitech Wireless & M/S Axis Bank & The Tds Was Credited To The Individual Account & Assessee Also Made The Claim. Since The Corresponding Income Was Not Offered, A.O Asked Assessee As To Why The Same Should Not Be Brought To Tax. It Was 2

house property from the above properties and also from transport business, including income from theatres and total income offered was to the tune of Rs. 36,60,876/-. In the balance sheet of HUF, there are properties shown, whereas in the in the balance sheet of the individual there are no properties shown but only the business assets. In view

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

TDS. The assessee has filed Form 16 which is not disputed by the Department. In the return of income, the assessee has declared salary income of Rs. Rs.8,93,294/- and loss from house property

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

TDS. The assessee has filed Form 16 which is not disputed by the Department. In the return of income, the assessee has declared salary income of Rs. Rs.8,93,294/- and loss from house property

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

TDS. The assessee has filed Form 16 which is not disputed by the Department. In the return of income, the assessee has declared salary income of Rs. Rs.8,93,294/- and loss from house property

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

house property. Further, the assessee also could not be able to justify the amount received from his wife and mother. In absence of any evidence, the arguments of the assessee that, source for purchase of property, is out of amount received from HUF, mother and wife cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made

DHARMENDER SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD -4(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

House Property”, after allowing standard deduction @ 30% and made addition of Rs.2,96,520/-. 4 ITA.No.807/Hyd./2025 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the property has been let-out by M/s. Surajmal Nani Bai Sharma Trust. However, by an inadvertent

KAMALUDDIN HAMED SALMANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

TDS shall 3 Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani be deducted @ 1% on Rs.1,63,25,000/- which worked out to Rs.1,63,250/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noted that, the differential amount Rs.75,250/- (Rs.1,63,250/- - Rs.88,000/-) needs to be brought to tax. 2.1. The Assessing Officer noted that, the assessee has sold a land vide sale deed No.8230 dated

KRISHNA MOORTHY CHADALAVADA,TIRUPATI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

house property. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has paid interest to Sundaram Finance, Shriram Finance, T.J. Finance and W.S. Group without deducting tax at source u/s. 194A of the Act. The assessee was asked to furnish relevant evidences and also explain why addition should not be made on interest paid on borrowed capital and without deducting TDS

KRISHNA MOORTHY CHADALAVADA,TIRUPATI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house property. The\nAssessing Officer further noted that the assessee has paid\ninterest to Sundaram Finance, Shriram Finance, T.J. Finance and\nW.S. Group without deducting tax at source u/s.194A of the Act.\nThe assessee was asked to furnish relevant evidences and also\nexplain why addition should not be made on interest paid on\nborrowed capital and without deducting TDS

PAPAIAH PULIPATI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 14 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

house property income of Rs.7,37,766/- u/sec.64(1A) of the Act along with his income and filed the return for the impugned assessment year 2010-2011. The assessee, thereafter, filed rectification application u/sec.154 of the Act before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer duly enclosing the original TDS