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

money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D are not attracted on the surrendered amount of Rs. 15 lacs. The said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was offered in case any discrepancy is found

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

money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D are not attracted on the surrendered amount of Rs. 15 lacs. The said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was offered in case any discrepancy is found

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

money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D are not attracted on the surrendered amount of Rs. 15 lacs. The said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was offered in case any discrepancy is found

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

money within the provisions of section 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

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...

unexplained money under\nsection 69A of the Act: Rs.56.41 crores; and (ii) the addition on\naccount of deviation in accounting treatment: Rs.11,44,51,818/-, and\nthus, dismissed the assessee's appeal. For the sake of clarity, we\ndeem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under:\n\"5. DETERMINATION:\n5.1 Ground

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

Bench: Us:

disallowances: 1 Unexplained money u/s 69A Rs.15,50,000/- 2 Unexplained money u/s 69B Rs.13,90,000/- 3 Unexplained money

ITO., WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIDHI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

disallowing cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the I T Act, holds good. Therefore, appeal of the appellant

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

disallowing cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the I T Act, holds good. Therefore, appeal of the appellant

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

disallowing cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the I T Act, holds good. Therefore, appeal of the appellant

ITO., WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIDHI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

disallowing cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the I T Act, holds good. Therefore, appeal of the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. VASUDEVA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

disallowing cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the I T Act, holds good. Therefore, appeal of the appellant

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

Bench: Us:

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, under the facts and circumstance of case. 4. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing

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

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

unexplained money can be made only when the\nassessee is found to be owned any money, bullion, jewellery\nor other valuable articles which is not recorded in the books\nof account, and the assessee offers no explanation about the\nnature and source of the said money. In the case in hand,\nonce the Assessing Officer has accepted the business

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. Also, the A.O. observed that the assessee company had failed to deduct tax at source on certain expenses aggregating to Rs. 1.62 Crores. Accordingly, the A.O. worked out the disallowance

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. Also, the A.O. observed that the assessee company had failed to deduct tax at source on certain expenses aggregating to Rs. 1.62 Crores. Accordingly, the A.O. worked out the disallowance

BHABUT SINGH RAJPUROHIT,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bhabut Singh Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Rajpurohit, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(1) Pan:Aiipr2543P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Photo Accessories. He Filed His Return Of Income Originally For The A.Y 2019-20 On 30.09.2019 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.10,45,940/-. During The Search & Seizure Operation A Cash Of Rs.3,27,650/- Was Seized By The Hyderabad Police In The Case Of The Assessee On 7.11.2018. A Search Action Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing U/S 132A On 23.7.2019 In Connection With The Search Action

Disallowance of excess claim of pre-construction period interest or borrowed loans of Rs. 16,819/-. 2. Unexplained money u/s. 69A of Rs. 3,27,650/- being

HEMAKUMAR REDDY POUTTIAKULA,CHITTOOR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pottiakula Hemakumar Vs. Acit, Reddy, Chittoor Circle 1(1) Pan:Amkpp6285C Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya Revenue By: Sri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2023 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4.9.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A) Tirupati Relating To A.Y 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal Due To Non-Appearance. However, Subsequently, Vide M.A Nos. 77 To 79/Hyd/ 2022 Dated 10.06.2022, The Tribunal Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence It Is A Recalled Matter.

money was advanced to the agriculturists. We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of the related party namely Shri Puttiakula Prathap Reddy and the Tribunal vide ITA Nos.1073 to 1077/Hyd/2019 order dated 6.1.2023 has deleted the interest by observing as under: “13. The second issue raised by the assessee in the ground

SHUBHAPRADA CHIT FUNDS PRIVATE LIMITED,ZAHEERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SANGAREDDY, TELANGANA.

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunagha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.805 & 806 /Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19) Shubhaprada Chit Funds Vs. Income Tax Officer (P) Ltd Ward – 1 Zaheerabad Sangareddy Pan:Aawcs8445G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-

unexplained money, without appreciating the fact that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were out of cash balance available with the Appellant as on 08/11/2016, duly supported by its books of account and in the regular course of business of chit funds. 3. The learned CIT (A) NFAC Delhi failed to appreciate that the Appellant had maintained regular