ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

250 Rs.28,45,440/ allowed. u/s 271(1)(c) are allowed - (penalty of IT - (Penalty initiated separately proceedings Act, Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 1961. u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated The are initiated separately appeal is separately. allowed 2 Vishnu ACWPN3597R ACIT, Assessment Assessee filed No scrutiny No appeal Swaroop Reddy Circle-6, completed u/s 143(3) appeal assessment

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

NADELLA MUNIKANNAIAH ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 N.Dathri L/R Of Late Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) Nadella Muni Kannaiah Tirupati C/O. Katrapati & Andhra Pradesh Associates 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1St Floor Ashok Nagar,Street No.1 Hyderabad-500 020

capital gains was accepted by the assessee. It is not a voluntary consent but due to the effort made by Department in establishing the concealment of income. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (35 taxman.com 250) and also on the decision

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

250 of the Act dated 28-07-2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding multiple additions made by AO without properly appreciating the facts of the case and appellant's submissions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

250/- under section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFor this and for such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing your appellant\nsubmits that the additions made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted.\nITA No.308/Hyd/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Revenue\n(i) Whether the Order of the Ld.CIT(Appeal) is erroneous on facts

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

250/- under Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFor this and for such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing your appellant\nsubmits that the additions made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted.\nITA No.308/Hyd/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Revenue\n(i)\n(ii)\n(iii)\n(iv)\n(v)\n(vi)\nWhether