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...

disallowance has correctly been made by the AO.\n5.4.14 Further, the appellant has requested to provide opportunity of video\nconference to explain its case before the undersigned. In this regard, following\nthe principle of natural justice, the undersigned has provided video conference\nfacility to the appellant on 12.03.2025 which was rescheduled to 17.03.2025 due\nto technical errors. The video conference

SHRI RAMPRIYA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

disallowance on borrowed fund to the extent of Rs.25,79,642/- without appreciating the fact that the investment in shares is not made for the purpose of dividend income and therefore, the provisions of section 14A have no application and therefore, the entire interest expenditure on borrowed fund amounting to Rs.35,60,747

KANAKA MAHA LAXMI HOUSE,SURYAPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

747/- in cash in violation of :- 4 -: provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, he treated 20% of the sales as ‘income of the assessee’. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO and the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following Grounds

GOOD TIMES LIQUOR STORE WINES,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 15.03.2024 and determined total income of Rs.1,72,89,747/- by inter alia making addition towards income from business and profession of Rs. 11,99,000/-, ad hoc disallowance

SUJATHA KANCHARLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

disallowing sundry creditors of an amount being of Rs.38,29,272/-, at 10%, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest under section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income

DCIT-1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALIREDDY, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 54F, thereby determining the long term capital gains at Rs.7,58,13,772/- 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who granted part relief to the assessee. 3 Smt. Syama Reddy Malireddy 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2013-14) 1. M/S. Desu Enterprises, Ongole (A.P.) Pan: Aagfd1940C 2. Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam. Pan: Αιτpg3044K (Appellants) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. (Respondents) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr & Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Desu Enterprises & Shri Thalla Srisailam Goud (“The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.02.2024 & 09.04.2024 For The A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

disallowing the grounds of the Appellant both -on facts of the case and in Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have noticed that the notice u/s 148 of the old law having been issued on 01.04.2021, the entire assessment proceedings consequent to such notice are bad in law in the light of the decision

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

disallowing the grounds of the Appellant both -on facts of the case and in Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have noticed that the notice u/s 148 of the old law having been issued on 01.04.2021, the entire assessment proceedings consequent to such notice are bad in law in the light of the decision

NARNE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

747/-. The assessee has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), which was with respect to the consequential order passed by the Ld.AO, :- 2 -: giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal Order on the earlier instance. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following Grounds: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner