ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED ZEESHANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. In 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A

R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

section 69A is incorrect in the absence of clear cut\nfinding by CIT(A) as to disallowance of expenditure in respect

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

69A of the Act. 48. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS. 49. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

69A of the Act. 48. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS. 49. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

69A of the Act. 48. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 44,24,840/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of TDS. 49. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the addition of Rs.11,44,51,818/- (supra) made by the\nAO, which, thereafter, had been sustained by the CIT(A), is vacated.\nThe Grounds of appeal Nos.3.1 to 3.4 are allowed in terms o...

disallowed under section 69A on the basis that\nthese were in form of SBNs and collection of these currency notes

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. R.K.INFRACORP PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 69A is incorrect in the absence of clear cut\nfinding by CIT(A) as to disallowance of expenditure in respect

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

69A of the Income Tax Act.\n3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the treatment\nof the amounts in the cash book as unexplained, ignoring the\nfact that the same have been included in the books of\naccounts, and the addition u/s.69A is outside the purview of\nthe said section.\n4. The Appellate Commissioner ignored the fact that the deposits

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.76,24,876/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 37. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.5 and 6 of assessee's appeal is the addition towards cash deposits during demonetization period for Rs.35,24,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. 38. During the course of assessment proceedings

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.76,24,876/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 37. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.5 and 6 of assessee's appeal is the addition towards cash deposits during demonetization period for Rs.35,24,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. 38. During the course of assessment proceedings

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of finance charges amounting to Rs.76,24,876/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 37. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.5 and 6 of assessee's appeal is the addition towards cash deposits during demonetization period for Rs.35,24,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. 38. During the course of assessment proceedings

BAL REDDY KANDUNURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A of\nthe Act. In the present case, the assessee, right from the beginning,\nincluding on the date of seizure of cash, has explained the nature and\nsource out of his business income. Therefore, in our considered view,\nthe learned Assessing Officer is erred in assessing the income declared\nby the assessee under head ‘income from business' as ‘unexplained\nmoney

DAKAPPAGARI NAVEEN KUMAR,MEDAK vs. ITO., WARD - 1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed

disallowance of a deduction under Section 80C.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A

SRI VENKAT DEVINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 69A of the Act. The Ld. AO\nalso made an addition of Rs.50,000/- by disallowing the deduction claimed

VIJAYKUMAR GOLANA,MEDAK vs. ITO., WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 69A of the Act on account of the deposit of said sum in specified banknotes during the demonetization period of Rs. 4,92,260/- on account of estimate of business profits at 8% of the turnover, and Rs. 1,82,300/- by disallowing

SRICHARAN DEVINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

section 69A of the Act. The Ld. AO\nalso made an addition of Rs.50,000/- by disallowing the deduction claimed