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

section 270A of the Act, the primary condition is to prove ‘mens rea’, i.e., guilty mind or an act of conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on part of Assessee, whereas the Appellant has disclosed all the information requested ITA No.785/Hyd/2024 6 for during the assessment proceedings as well as at the time of filing the Income tax return

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

capital gain of Rs 1,95,9 1,540/- by relying solely\non the Balance sheet filed for the A.Y 2017-18 and deciding\nthat the total value of the block of asset stood at\nRs.3,15,06,000/- whereas in the ITR filed for the previous\nyears and the year under question, the total value of the\nbuilding

SUBBALAKSHMAMMA PINNAMA,THUMMALAGUNTA,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Capital Gains derived on account of the transfer of property in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement. Further, the case of the assessee falls under Section 270A(3) of the Act, where it has been 7 Subbalakshmi Pinnama clearly stated that, in a case where the income has been assessed for the first time, where no return of income has been

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

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

Section 270A of the Act without appreciating the case in entirety 8. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal herein above or add any further grounds may be considered necessary and to submit such statements, documents, facts and evidence as may be considered necessary either

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

capital gains of Rs.373 crores\non account of sale of shares of Kakinada Seaports Limited to\nM/s. Auro Infra Private Limited. Since, this was the income\noffered by the assessee and accepted by the Assessing Officer\nand therefore, there was no question of dispute on this point\nat the stage of assessment order as well as appellate order\npassed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCL GREEN HABITATS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gains of business or profession" or under the head "Salaries";] 33[(v) where any sum of money exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees is received without consideration by an individual or a Hindu undivided family from any person on or after the 1st day of September, 2004 34[but before the 1st day of April, 2006], the whole of such

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

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)

9. (a) The Ld.AO erred in making an addition of Rs.2,11,94,285/- to the income from other sources without there being any evidence but merely based on the assumptions which is incorrect and bad in law. (b) The Ld.AO has erred in making addition on the basis of loose sheets seized from the third party in the course

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)

9. (a) The Ld.AO erred in making an addition of Rs.2,11,94,285/- to the income from other sources without there being any evidence but merely based on the assumptions which is incorrect and bad in law. (b) The Ld.AO has erred in making addition on the basis of loose sheets seized from the third party in the course

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., 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

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

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

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

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