DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

nature of residential property. 8.2. The last property which was shown at page No.26 of the paper book i.e., plot No.65 (reproduced hereinbelow) is a vacant plot as is clear from the sale certificate and therefore, it cannot be said to be a residential property. 8.3. Thus, all the three properties which were sold by the State Bank of Travancore

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

natural justice and Rule 46 of I.T. Rules, 1962 as the assessee had relied upon certain documents and ld.CIT(A) decided the case after relying upon the said documents. He had drawn our attention to Para 13.5 and 13.6 of the order of ld.CIT(A) which was to the following effect : 6 Smt. Syama Reddy Malireddy 13.5 The appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

justice. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the appeal. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s 54F.” 3.1. Ld.DR

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

natures justice. Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in allowing exemption u/s 54F ignoring the fact that assessee had transferred the original asset on 19.04.2016 and purchased the new asset from M/s. Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd., only after a period of four years and ten months vide Agreement of Sale cum GPA dt.23.02.2021. 8. On the other hand

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -8(1) , HYDERABAD vs. THIRUPALAPPA CHOWDARY NAGELI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Shri Thirupalappa Circle 8(1) Chowdary Nageli, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adbpn9171H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohammed Afzal, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-8, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal 1 & 2 Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition U/ 68 Of Rs.40,50,000/- Under The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Failed To Establish With Documentary Evidences That The Rental Receipts Received In Puttaparthi Were Deposited In Cash In Hyderabad Which Is Far Of Place”.

house property of Rs.4,32,18,311/- we have paid the above consideration in the following dates and their sources are as follows: Date Amount Sources Un Secured Loan of Rs. 11,00,000/- from 27.4.2015 10,00,000 k venkatanarayana on 24-04-2015. LIC Loan Rs17,56,167/- on 27-4-2015. 9.5.2015 10,00,000 Un Secured

RADHIKA KURRA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Radhika Kurra, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(2), Pan – Aedpk 3506Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

house as the villas handed over to assessee by Ambience Properties Limited are not in habitable condition and that they are semi- finished villas. The revenue authorities held that the assessee, failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the said villas were not in inhabitable condition when they were handed over by the developer. Further, no evidence with documentary proof

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

Natural Justice but also of the action in complete disregard to the Statutory Provision. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld.AO erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant in submitting the sources of cash deposits made during the AY 2021-22. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

Natural Justice but also of the action in complete disregard to the Statutory Provision. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that Ld.AO erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant in submitting the sources of cash deposits made during the AY 2021-22. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

KARTHIK KUMAR KYATHAM,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADILABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

natural justice.\n3b) The learned CIT(A) ought to have taken a favourable\ninterpretation of the benevolent provisions of section 249(3) of Act\nand ought to have contended the delay in filing the appeal and\nadjudicated the grounds on merit.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the\nbasis of merits, rather

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the assessee furnishing the relevant figure of interest. 9. Coming to the treatment of profits from money lending under the head ‘income from other sources’ by the learned Assessing Officer

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the assessee furnishing the relevant figure of interest. 9. Coming to the treatment of profits from money lending under the head ‘income from other sources’ by the learned Assessing Officer

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the assessee furnishing the relevant figure of interest. 9. Coming to the treatment of profits from money lending under the head ‘income from other sources’ by the learned Assessing Officer

SYED KIWAN KHAJA MOHIUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.80/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Kiwan Khaja Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin Ward-12(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqops0246K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Jagannath राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 आदेश/Order

nature of the assessee’s employment being a Pilot in an Airline, the assessee could not produce the relevant supporting evidence and details before the authorities below in support of the source of deposits made in the bank account as well as the registration charges for purchase of house property. The learned AR has submitted that the assessee

SHANTHA NATARAJAN, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

natural justice and therefore entire addition made needs to be deleted. 3. The additional grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The order of the CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad ['CIT(A)'] while ordering the deletion of the addition of Rs. 61.18 lakhs at the concluding paragraphs, of Para no. 7.4 of the order, erred in linking

HARISH BHATT NATARAJAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

natural justice and therefore entire addition made needs to be deleted. 3. The additional grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The order of the CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad ['CIT(A)'] while ordering the deletion of the addition of Rs. 61.18 lakhs at the concluding paragraphs, of Para no. 7.4 of the order, erred in linking

NAFEES SULTANA,HYEDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD.

Bench: Us:

natural justice. 4.a) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,56,130/- received from HY Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd. as unexplained rental income, without appreciating that the amount was received pursuant to a compromise agreement in a civil case (O.S. No. 881 of 2012), and pertains to arrears

MEKALA LALITHA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO,WARD 8(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Pawan Kumar Makala Vs Ito,Ward-8(2) H.No.23-172/1, Plot No.158, Signature Towers, Madhura Nagar, Kondapur. Shamshabad, Hyderabad-5000 84. Ranga Reddy District. Telangana-501 218

house property. A copy of the return ofincome of Smt.M.Lalieth is annexed. The assessing Officer without verification of the return of income, mentioned that the additional evidence should not be considered. In sofar as the appellate is concerned, there is an evidence to show that the return of income was submitted and the records maIntained by the Assessing Officer also

PAWAN KUMAR MAKALA ,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Pawan Kumar Makala Vs Ito,Ward-8(2) H.No.23-172/1, Plot No.158, Signature Towers, Madhura Nagar, Kondapur. Shamshabad, Hyderabad-5000 84. Ranga Reddy District. Telangana-501 218

house property. A copy of the return ofincome of Smt.M.Lalieth is annexed. The assessing Officer without verification of the return of income, mentioned that the additional evidence should not be considered. In sofar as the appellate is concerned, there is an evidence to show that the return of income was submitted and the records maIntained by the Assessing Officer also