DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The assessee has more or less raised common grounds for all the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds raised in ITA No.315/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 2.1 The assessee has more or less raised common grounds for all the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds raised in ITA No.315/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case

VISHAL JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vishal Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aympj0559M. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 on 30.08.2019 admitting total income of Rs.13,51,680/-. The Investigating Team found cash of Rs.11,83,000/- in possession of assessee

SURESH MADAMANCHI,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the 577-day delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present documentary evidence.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A", "69B

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

69B where assessee fails to explain investments with corroborative evidence. Thus, the addition of Rs. 19,54,348/- as unexplained investment is sustained and relevant grounds of appeal are dismissed and not allowed. 5.5. The appellant is agitated against the Rejection of Books of Account u/s 145(3) of the Act and Disallowance of Business Expenses

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

69B are not therefore applicable. (b) The learned AO is not justified in making the addition of Rs.15,15,875/- towards the alleged unexplained investment in the house property without granting adequate opportunity. The learned AO should have granted adequate enough time because the transaction was too old.” 7. However, there is no adjudication by the ld.CIT

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

69B are not therefore applicable. (b) The learned AO is not justified in making the addition of Rs.15,15,875/- towards the alleged unexplained investment in the house property without granting adequate opportunity. The learned AO should have granted adequate enough time because the transaction was too old.” 7. However, there is no adjudication by the ld.CIT

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

69B are not therefore applicable. (b) The learned AO is not justified in making the addition of Rs.15,15,875/- towards the alleged unexplained investment in the house property without granting adequate opportunity. The learned AO should have granted adequate enough time because the transaction was too old.” 7. However, there is no adjudication by the ld.CIT

KASIREDDY SASIKALAMMA,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD -1, GUDUR

Bench: Us:

Section 148 of the Act dated 4 Kasireddy Sasikalamma 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of income on 19.04.2021 declaring an income of Rs. 3,62,350/-. 3. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.36