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, 69B

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IRFANUDDIN, 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, 69B

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, 69B

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

Bench: Us:

section 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69B of the Act deals with, where in any financial year\nthe assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article and the Assessing Officer finds that the amount\nexpended on making such investments exceeds amount recorded in this behalf in the\nbooks of accounts maintained by the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

69B of the Act. In this case, facts are entirely different. The excess stock found during the course of survey was mixed with regular stock in trade of the assessee in its business. The survey team was also not identified excess stock separately, but was valued because the assessee could not reconcile the difference in stock in trade when compared

H GANGARAM CLOTH MERCHANTS ,NIZAMABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 69B, for the relevant assessment year 2010-11 the addition of Rs.2,43,713 ought to have been set off against of current year loss of Rs.71,69,984/- 4. Your appellant submits that the difference in estimation of cost of construction and value as per book being very small, the difference may be ignored and books value

ANNE MANOJ CHOWDARY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE. 15.1 After hearing both sides, we find the assessee in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 31.8.2019 declared total income at Rs.98,03,260/- which included an amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs offered as additional income during the course of search. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessement proceedings noted that an amount

ANNE RAJESWARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE. 15.1 After hearing both sides, we find the assessee in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 31.8.2019 declared total income at Rs.98,03,260/- which included an amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs offered as additional income during the course of search. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessement proceedings noted that an amount

VALLABHANENI SRINIVAS CHOWDARY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE. 15.1 After hearing both sides, we find the assessee in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 31.8.2019 declared total income at Rs.98,03,260/- which included an amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs offered as additional income during the course of search. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessement proceedings noted that an amount

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69B, or 69C of the Act, thus rendering the invocation of Section 115BBE legally untenable. 7.The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee “M/s. Prathima Infrastructure Limited” is engaged in the business of civil engineering and execution