TATA RAO GALI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT.TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

capital gains and other sources and agriculture income of Rs. 3,49,984/-. The return was processed by the AO-CPC, Bengaluru, and intimation under section 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was sent to the assessee on 02/06/2022 with a demand of Rs. 76,410/-. This demand was raised on account of variance in computation of interest

SGB BRANDSAFWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

capital gains on the sale of fixed assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessee is also directed to provide all the details to reconcile the profit on the sale of fixed assets and the working of WDV fixed assets as per the provisions of the Act without seeking any adjournment. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee

KP ADVISORY SERVICES LLP,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1013/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Kp Advisory Services Llp, The Acit, Hyderabad. Pin–500 016. Vs. Central Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aarfk7349F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

Capital Gains of Rs.447,62,58,609 was considered in the Computation of Total Income Statement as per the assessment order as against Rs. 446,87,55,610 finalized in 3 ITA.No.1013/Hyd./2025 the Assessment order under section 143(3), thereby subjecting a wrong and arbitrary income to tax without providing any basis for doing so. 6. That

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain, under section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/-, which is sale consideration received from sale of property, without reducing the cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses, under the facts and circumstances of the case

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain, under section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/-, which is sale consideration received from sale of property, without reducing the cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses, under the facts and circumstances of the case

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain, under section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/-, which is sale consideration received from sale of property, without reducing the cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses, under the facts and circumstances of the case

JUGENDER REDDY ANANTHULA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1) of the Act. 15. As observed hereinabove, the original return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 24.02.2016. Thereafter, the assessee had voluntarily filed a return of income, wherein after including the capital gains on the transfer 13 Jugender Reddy Ananthula. of land based

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gains Rs.22,12,74,800/- This has resulted into short computation of total income of Rs.22,12,74,800/- with a tax effect of Rs.10,00,31,035/-. After verification of the facts from the assessment record this aspect needs thorough verification. B) Besides the above it is also observed that deficiencies in the interest calculation u/s 234A

HARIPRIYA TEKUPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TXN - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer considered the return of income furnished by the assessee dated 07.09.2022 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, in our considered view, then, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment. 20 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd./2024 In the present

GANGARAM REDDY TEKULAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., INT TAXN- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer considered the return of income furnished by the assessee dated 07.09.2022 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, in our considered view, then, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment. 20 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd./2024 In the present

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to interest under section 234A

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to interest under section 234A

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

234A(3) clearly contemplates that a 'return of income' filed after the expiry of the stipulated time period shall still continue to be a 'return of income' filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s 148. We find that our aforesaid view also stands fortified from the very fact that after the assessee had filed the 'return of income

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

234A(3) clearly contemplates that a 'return of income' filed after the expiry of the stipulated time period shall still continue to be a 'return of income' filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s 148. We find that our aforesaid view also stands fortified from the very fact that after the assessee had filed the 'return of income

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

capital gain earned on the sale of equity shares of Rs.9,04,912/- without following the computation mechanism provided under the statute. 14. The Ld.AO has erred in not invoking the provisions of section 133(6) or in making reference to the verification unit to collate the required details instead of making high-pitched additions; 15. The Ld.AO has erred

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

capital gains and income from business, respectively, assessing total income at Rs.1,79,31,395/-.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee's delayed awareness of the assessment order, caused by the lapses of the previous consultant and the Karta residing abroad. The Tribunal condoned

KHAIRUNNISA,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Khairunnisa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, R/O.8-5-85, Ward 11(3), Road No.1, Hyderabad. Mallikarjuna Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Pan : Anvpk4801B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA No.24 /Hyd/2024 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “ 1. The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte when the appellant filed written

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge) 93,69,810/- Add: Education cess @ 3% = 2,81,094/- 96,50,904/- Tax on total Income = Add: Interest u/s 234A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

Capital Gain Tax) of Rs. 93,69,810/- Tax on normal rate on income Total Tax there on = 93,69,810/- Less : Rebate on Agri. Income = 0 Page 7 of 31 Add surcharge @ 0% 0 Total Tax (Tax+Surcharge) 93,69,810/- Add: Education cess @ 3% = 2,81,094/- 96,50,904/- Tax on total Income = Add: Interest u/s 234A