NIMMATOORI YASHODA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital 8 ITA.Nos.602 & 603/Hyd./2025 gains was made during the assessment proceedings too. The Jt./Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad further noted that, the Assessing Officer at para 8.4 of the assessment order categorically rebutted the claim with the assertion that, the said villages are urban areas as they are a part of Hyderabad Metropolitan Region notified

GOPINATH KANDURI ,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, KADAPA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

capital gains and filed the return of income on 18/01/2019, disclosing an income of Rs. 4,55,250/-. Accordingly learned Assessing Officer finalized the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Learned Assessing Officer, however, on a perusal of the cash book and ledger, found that some of the amounts of sale consideration were received in cash

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJABABU L/R BY ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD is incorrect. Learned Sr. AR further referring to certain judicial precedents including decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the case of Rakesh Ganapathy vs., JCIT [2025] 170 taxman.com 239 [ITAT-Bangalore] submitted 15 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 that, the facts in the above case are distinguishable from

NIMMATOORI RAMESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD is incorrect. Learned Sr. AR further referring to certain judicial precedents including decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the case of Rakesh Ganapathy vs., JCIT [2025] 170 taxman.com 239 [ITAT-Bangalore] submitted 15 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 that, the facts in the above case are distinguishable from

JAYARAM BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gains of Rs.9,85,930/- and tax and interest totalling to Rs.1,68,150/- was paid and proof enclosed. 7(iii) In the light of contentions, raised by the assessee that the amount of cash received by him is not a loan or deposit, but sale consideration received on sale of immovable property and that provisions of section 269SS

RAMACHANDRAN BANDHUVULA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ramachandran Vs. Income Tax Officer Bandhuvula, Hyderabad Ward 3(1) Pan:Aczpb3228M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15 Erroneous To The Extent It Is Prejudicial To The Appellant. 2. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Levy Of Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T Act. Without Giving Proper Opportunity. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Observed That The Transaction Of Sale Doesn'T Fall During The Previous Year Relevant For Assessment Year Under Consideration As The Registration Took Place On. 20.01.2016 Relevant For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Page 1 Of 8

Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of property in the return of income for the A.Y 2016-17. Page 2 of 8 ITA 523 of 2022 Ram Chandra 5. Considering the above submission made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the assessee and completed the assessment accepting the returned income of Rs.4,83,310/-. Subsequently, the Assessing

DAMODAR RAO BIBINAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Damodar Rao Bibinagar, Vs. The Additional 1-8-74/6, Commissioner Of Income Chikkadapally, Tax, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana – 500020. Pan : Afjpb5620F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 26/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/12/2023

capital gains, and paid applicable taxes which evidences that the Appellant had no intention to hide any information from Revenue, but was only ignorant of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 5. The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating the provisions of section 271 D of the Act dealing with penalty for violation of provisions of section 269SS

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)

section 270A and 271D of the Income Of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), 1961. 11. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts

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)

section 270A and 271D of the Income Of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), 1961. 11. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and / or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts

SHAIK JAFAR,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-2, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.484/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Shaik Jafar Vs. Income Tax Officer Kurnool Ward 2 Pan:Axnps0372B Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hari Agarwal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/07/2024 आदेश/Order

Capital Gain is verified and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making addition of Rs.3,93,769/-. Thereafter, notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.3.2021 was issued and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the penalty u/s 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 for accepting the sale consideration in cash amounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. G CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), respectively. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.206/Hyd/2023 reads as under : “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the seized cash

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. G CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), respectively. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.206/Hyd/2023 reads as under : “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the seized cash