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

271D of the Act is not leviable in the appellant's case for the year under consideration. 5 ITA.Nos.602 & 603/Hyd./2025 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

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

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee, an individual and is one of the Trustees of M/s. Aurora Educational Society & Other Group Trusts. The assessee has originally filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-2017 on 14.03.2017 admitting total income of Rs.19,83,320/-, after claiming Chapter-VIA deductions of Rs.1

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

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee, an individual and is one of the Trustees of M/s. Aurora Educational Society & Other Group Trusts. The assessee has originally filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-2017 on 14.03.2017 admitting total income of Rs.19,83,320/-, after claiming Chapter-VIA deductions of Rs.1

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, deriving income from medical profession. During the financial year 2017-18, the assessee besides deriving income from medical profession, also derived income from capital gains on sale of plots situated at Ramaraju Palli Village, Kadapa. The gross receipts from sale of the property aggregated

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)

2. The Ld.A.O. grossly erred in invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the I.T.Act without there being any incriminating material found belonging to the appellant during the course of search in the premises of third party. 3. The Ld.A.O ought to have appreciated the fact that the issuance of notice u/s 153C has to be done before the completion

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)

2. The Ld.A.O. grossly erred in invoking the provisions of sec.153C of the I.T.Act without there being any incriminating material found belonging to the appellant during the course of search in the premises of third party. 3. The Ld.A.O ought to have appreciated the fact that the issuance of notice u/s 153C has to be done before the completion

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

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had sold an immovable property and the sale proceeds were received in cash amounting to Rs.13,63,000/-. On observation that the cash amounting to more than Rs.20,000/- was accepted in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS by the Assessing Officer, a show cause notice u/s 271D

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

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

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