PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

section 132(4A) of the Act, and drawn presumption\nagainst third party, which law does not permit. The presumption\nu/s 132(4A) only can be drawn against searched person and not\nany third party. Further, searched person in this case is Dalmia\ngroup and the transactions do not belong to the assessee. To\nsummarise, the additions made by the Assessing

RAMESH BABU SEGU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD.

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.137/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Ramesh Babu Segu, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Amrps2069N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Ramesh Babu Segu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 19/11/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grouds Of Appeal:

Capital gain on Sale of Immovable property made by the Assessing Officer. 3b. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the decision of the assessing officer in restricting the cost of Land to INR 760 per Square yard from INR 1000 per Square yard claimed by the appellant. 3c. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. P SHIVMOHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gains”. 17. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that section 132(4) statement which was subsequently retracted has no evidentiary value unless backed by corroborative evidence. He again reiterated that the so-called statement was forcefully Page 10 of 16 ITA Nos 60 and 61 P Shivmohan Reddy Hyderabad recorded from the assessee and the so called piece

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. LINGIAH AMIDYALA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Capital gains on the total sale consideration of Rs.3,63,30,320/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.4792000/-. What is your explanation. Ans. I don't know and I don't remember anything about the contents of the page no.24 of the Anx A/LA/RES/01. Q.33 As per the details mentioned in the page--no.24 of.Anx A/LA/RES/01 i.e., the extent

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Capital Gain Account Scheme (“CGAS”). The Ld. AO\ndisallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.54F contending\nthat, the assessee had deposited the amount in CGAS after the due\ndate specified u/s.139(1) of the Act. Finally, the Ld. AO completed\nthe assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 22.12.2019\nconsidering the sales consideration at Rs.67,34,000/-, allowing

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

4a. By erroneously recalculating and re-computing the market value at a rate which is contrary to the provisions of section 80IA(8) and mandates of judicial authorities. 4b. By rejecting the comparable market rate for procurement of power from Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) and determining the Arm’s Length Price at Rs. 2.97/- per unit, being

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

gain and income from other sources\naggregating to Rs.8,54,52,625/-. After considering the submissions\nfiled by the assessee, the Ld. PCIT concluded that both the issues\nwere not examined by the Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment,\nhence treated the order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial\nto the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, vide order dated

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

4A) and Section 292C of the Act, as per which the seized document, viz., Page 38 of Annexure A/JRFM/05 was to be presumed to be belonging to either Shri. Surender Jindal (supra) i.e. the owner of the laptop or M/s Jitender Roller Flour Mills, i.e. the searched concern in whose premises the laptop was found lying in the course

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

4A) and Section 292C of the Act, as per which the seized document, viz., Page 38 of Annexure A/JRFM/05 was to be presumed to be belonging to either Shri. Surender Jindal (supra) i.e. the owner of the laptop or M/s Jitender Roller Flour Mills, i.e. the searched concern in whose premises the laptop was found lying in the course

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

4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section 3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies

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

4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section 3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies

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

4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section 3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies

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

4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section 3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies