BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

69A of the Act. 48. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS

KRISHNAIAH PANABAKA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

69A, Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) is\ninitiated separately.\n(Addition: Rs. 40,90,000/-)\n6.1.\nThe Assessing Officer has acknowledged the filing\nof the confirmation from the farmers along with PAN. The\n11\nITA.No.1767/Hyd./2025\ncopies of the confirmations are placed at page nos.325 to 336\nof the paper book as under:\nFrom:\nMuppala Mahender Raju

KONATHAM KOTIREDDY,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

sections 69A and the estimation of\n4\nITA.No.1464/Hyd./2025\nprofit on gross credits are arbitrary, excessive, and contrary\nto law, and deserve to be deleted in toto.\n11. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, or\nwithdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing in\nthe interest of justice.\"\n3.\nThe learned Authorised Representative

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEW CLUB, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. AO further noticed from the TDS

SUJATHA KANCHARLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, during the demonetization period, made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.96 lacs in her bank account No.064225600001820 maintained with HDFC Bank, Branch: Sanjeev Reddy Nagar. On being queried, the assessee claimed that the subject cash deposits were sourced from the cash

PRASANTH PUTTAMAREDDY,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

TDS was deducted under Section 194IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was further noticed that, the assessee had not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, and in the absence of return of income, the source of investment towards purchase of the property remained unexplained. The A.O. issued notice under Section

PRASANTH PUTTAMAREDDY,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

TDS was deducted under Section 194IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was further noticed that, the assessee had not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, and in the absence of return of income, the source of investment towards purchase of the property remained unexplained. The A.O. issued notice under Section

SIVA SANKARA REDDY TUNGA,HYDERABAD. vs. ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

TDS Statement): Rs.1,25,775/-; and (iv) time deposit exceeding Rs.2 lakhs or more with Andhra Bank: Rs.26,00,000/- , but had not filed his return of income for the subject year, i.e., AY 2016- 17, issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 25/03/2023

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.9,30,91,117/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 33. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.9,30,91,117/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 33. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.9,30,91,117/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 33. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

section 294 of the Act. 11. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to delete the arbitrary additions made and upheld by the lower authorities. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 24.07.2017, declaring

G K PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 69A are not applicable. Hence, the addition is liable to be deleted. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in treating Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was paid towards outstanding amount on account of purchase of property. This addition is liable to be deleted

CH MARTHANDA RAO AND CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

Bench: Us:

TDS return that, though the assessee firm during the subject year i.e., A.Y 2014-15, had taxable income, which included contract receipts of Ch Marthanda Rao and Co. Rs. 33.55 crores (approx.), but had not filed its return of income, thus, initiated prosecution proceedings under Section 276CC of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that M/s CMR Projects Limited

CH MARTHANDA RAO & CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the order passed by the CIT(A) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations, and the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our afore...

Bench: Us:

TDS return that, though the assessee firm during the subject year i.e., A.Y 2014-15, had taxable income, which included contract receipts of Ch Marthanda Rao and Co. Rs. 33.55 crores (approx.), but had not filed its return of income, thus, initiated prosecution proceedings under Section 276CC of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that M/s CMR Projects Limited

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

SHANKARAIAH TELAKAPALLY,NALGONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, NALGONDA

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shankaraiah Telakapalli, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4-10-520/Cs/1, Sainagar Ward – 1, Colony, Ward-24, Nalgonda. Nalgonda, Telangana - 508001. Pan : Alipt1315Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Phanindra, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/01/2024

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) erroneous and unsustainable in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer wherein

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM vs. VARALAKHSMI CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.303 & 304/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Varalakshmi Ward-1 Constructions Khammam Khammam Pan:Aagfv0744C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Both Dated 22/01/2024 For The A.Ys 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal For These A.Ys. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue For The A.Y 2014-15 Are As Under:

TDS @ 2%. Thus, I find that the nature and source of receipts is explained. I find that copy contract agreement between M/s. Madhucon Project Ltd and the appellant was furnished before the AO during assessment proceedings also. From the above facts, addition of entire turnover u/s 69A of the Act is not justified. Regarding the profit of the appellant