UNITED STEEL ALLIED INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

Gain on sale of Immovable property of Rs.4,16,72,303/-, the net Long Term Capital Loss was Rs.28,67,52,894/-.” 4 ITA.No.908/Hyd./2025 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee company has preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee company has challenged penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for under-reporting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1) , TIRUPATI vs. VENKATA SWAMY RAVURI , CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

270A of the I.T.Act, 1961.\n15.1\nWe have also gone through para no.4 of the order of\nthe Ld. CIT(A) which is to the following effect:\n4. Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land\nDuring the Financial Year 2016-17, relevant to the Assessment\nYear 2017-18, the assessee has sold an immovable property containing\nboth land

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

capital gains income during the year under consideration. (5) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO further erred in proposing the penalty proceedings u/s 270A. The Ld. AO erred in taking into consideration that in order to levy penalty under section 270A of the Act, the primary condition is to prove ‘mens rea’, i.e., guilty mind

PENNINTI VIVEKANANDA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1494/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Penninti Vivekananda Vs. Adit (International Rao, Hyderabad Taxation)-2 Pan:Ayupp1895L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain. However, the Ld.AO made it taxable under the head of income from other source. As such there is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts on the part of the assessee. Hence, the case of the assessee does not fall under any of the clauses (a) to (f) of section 270A (9) of the Act and the penalty levied

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

6 of your notice, it is submitted that I\nhave not purchased or sold any other properties during the financial\nyear 2020-21.\"\nThe submissions filed by the assessee and the details available on\nrecord are carefully perused and a detailed Show Cause Notice\nu/s_144B(1)(xii)(b) of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on\n11.12.2022 requesting

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

270A of the Act for under- reporting of income. Feeling aggrieved by the directions of the Ld. DRP / Assessment Order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above-extracted grounds. 3. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has not claimed deduction U/s. 80IA of the Act in the return of income filed

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

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

270A of the Act and, therefore, the reasons explained\nby the assessee are factually not disputed because the\ndecision to file the appeal has been taken only after the\npenalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee\nhas explained the reasons for delay that only after the levy of\npenalty, the assessee has an imminent risk of facing

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

270A are initiated for under reporting of income. Accordingly, the income is computed as under: Returned income as per revised return - Rs.24,18,41,090/- Add. TPO Adjustment - Rs.5,88,22,320/- Education Cess disallowed - Rs. 23,85,335/- Depreciation disallowed - Rs. 33,46,509/- Total - Rs.30,57,95,254/- 7. Aggrieved with such order of the learned

PRAJYOTH KUMAR ADI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice.

capital gains (STCG) on the sale of the subject property. Also, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income regarding the aforesaid addition so made by him. 5. Apart from that, the AO made an addition of the interest received by the assessee of Rs.1

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67,93,253/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, but, as far as addition on account of LTCG is concerned, directed

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67,93,253/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, but, as far as addition on account of LTCG is concerned, directed

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67,93,253/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, but, as far as addition on account of LTCG is concerned, directed

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67,93,253/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, but, as far as addition on account of LTCG is concerned, directed

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

6. The final assessment order u/s 144C(13) passed on 19.01.2024 is barred by limitation u/s 153B of the Act as the notice u/s 153C was issued on 30.03.2022 and the time limit to finalize the assessment is on or before 31.03.2023. 7. (a) The Ld.AO has grossly erred by not appreciating the fact that in the hands

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

6. The final assessment order u/s 144C(13) passed on 19.01.2024 is barred by limitation u/s 153B of the Act as the notice u/s 153C was issued on 30.03.2022 and the time limit to finalize the assessment is on or before 31.03.2023. 7. (a) The Ld.AO has grossly erred by not appreciating the fact that in the hands

KATRAPALLY VENUMADHAV,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gains (STCG): Rs.57,57,000/-; and (iii) income received from M/s. Vaishnavi Estates Private Limited: Rs.50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the latter on the said count itself had dismissed the appeal. 6

KATRAPALLY VENUMADHAV,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gains (STCG): Rs.57,57,000/-; and (iii) income received from M/s. Vaishnavi Estates Private Limited: Rs.50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the latter on the said count itself had dismissed the appeal. 6