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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had inadvertently in his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17, had wrongly mentioned the cash in hand available with him on 31.03.2016 as Rs.1,06,092/-. The Ld.AR submitted that the 13 Gowri Shankar Gupta subject cash deposit of Rs.35.13 lacs (supra

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

money is treated as unexplained credit u/s Rs. 1,09,114 68 (as discussed at Para 6) Add: In the absence of any details and compliance to notice u/s Rs.54,00,000 142(1), the entire amount of Rs.54,00,000/- is treated as unexplained credit (as discussed at Para 7) Add: Excess credit shown by the assessee

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

money is treated as unexplained credit u/s Rs. 1,09,114 68 (as discussed at Para 6) Add: In the absence of any details and compliance to notice u/s Rs.54,00,000 142(1), the entire amount of Rs.54,00,000/- is treated as unexplained credit (as discussed at Para 7) Add: Excess credit shown by the assessee

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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. IL & FS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LIMITED , HYDERABAD

TDS provisions, additions\ntowards unexplained expenditure u/s 69C as per cash book\nmaintained by the appellant, disallowance of interest on\nborrowings u/s 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of unverifiable labour\ncharges, unexplained sub contract expenses and material\npurchases. The Ld.CIT(A), for the reasons given in his appellate\norder dated 30.09.2019, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee,\nwhere

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:

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), NFAC, set aside the AO’s order, observing that the matter required proper examination with respect to the correct legal entity, conversion of the firm into a company, and income already disclosed by the successor

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:

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), NFAC, set aside the AO’s order, observing that the matter required proper examination with respect to the correct legal entity, conversion of the firm into a company, and income already disclosed by the successor

IL & FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED(FORMERLY MAYTAS INFRA LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, HYDERABAD

TDS provisions, additions\ntowards unexplained expenditure u/s 69C as per cash book\nmaintained by the appellant, disallowance of interest on\nborrowings u/s 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of unverifiable labour\ncharges, unexplained sub contract expenses and material\npurchases. The Ld.CIT(A), for the reasons given in his appellate\norder dated 30.09.2019, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee,\nwhere

RK INTERIORS CFS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1865/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 M/S. Rk Interiors Cfs (India) Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034. Ward-3(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aakcr1592H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

TDS u/sec.194Q of the Act on business purchases and consequently, disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. While completing the assessment vide order dated 21.03.2025 the Assessing Officer made two additions i.e., addition u/sec.40(a)(ia) as well as u/sec.68 of the Act for a sum of Rs.1,44,05,947/- and Rs.11,66,67,629/- respectively. On appeal

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

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.” 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in invoking the provisions u/s. 69A, while the transaction is duly explained and accounted, recorded, disclosed and declared in books of account

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1330/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Constructions The Income Tax Officer, Nirmal. Telangana. Ward-1, Vs. Pin – 504 106. Nirmal – 504 106. Pan Aapfk1280K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar,Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

money" as contemplated u/s 69A of the Act. xiii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the AO who concluded that the gross business receipts of the assessee amount to Rs.2,20,45,610/- as against NIL revenue shown by the assessee and that

TAJ SULTANA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

TDS return and hence the tax deducted was Not showing up in the tax portal. 2) Income from other sources 1. Mortgage loan taken from SBI amounting to Rs. 16,15,000/- was credited to my SB Acct On 21/06/2016 and a copy of confirmation Letter from the SBI Gruhakalpa Branch dated 20-02-2020 & also loan Statement bearing

KESHAVA REDDY NAGIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (1), KURNOOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.463 & 464/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Keshava Reddy Nagireddy Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adcpn1614N] Circle (1) Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 05/03/2024, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposited in his bank account maintained with Canara bank and offer the said income to tax (ii) Rs.2,47,443/- as undisclosed income with regard to income earned from interest (iii) Rs.14,37,703/- as unexplained expenditure

KESHAVA REDDY NAGIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (1), KURNOOL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.463 & 464/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Keshava Reddy Nagireddy Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adcpn1614N] Circle (1) Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 05/03/2024, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposited in his bank account maintained with Canara bank and offer the said income to tax (ii) Rs.2,47,443/- as undisclosed income with regard to income earned from interest (iii) Rs.14,37,703/- as unexplained expenditure

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

unexplained money u/sec.69A,\nestimated income on all bank credits 8% and disallowance\nof deductions under Chapter-VIA of the Income Tax Act [in\nshort \"the Act\"], 1961. Thus, the learned Authorised\nRepresentative of the Assessee has submitted that the\nAssessing Officer has travelled beyond the scope of limited\nscrutiny while making the additions on account of estimated\nincome

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS in their assessments on the basis entries in Form No.26AS. The most relevant provision is Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that the Court may presume that Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. No evidence was found to show that cash was returned by these entities to Appellant. Mere oral statements

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS in their assessments on the basis entries in Form No.26AS. The most relevant provision is Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that the Court may presume that Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. No evidence was found to show that cash was returned by these entities to Appellant. Mere oral statements

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

TDS in their assessments on the basis entries in Form No.26AS. The most relevant provision is Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that the Court may presume that Judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. No evidence was found to show that cash was returned by these entities to Appellant. Mere oral statements