THE SECUNDERBAD CLUB ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD -10(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property: 8.4 In this context, it is important to understand the principle of mutuality before adjudicating the issue on hand. It is well settled principle of law that, in order to fulfil the requirement of mutuality, a mutual association has to establish the crucial criteria that there is identity between contributors and participators / recipients to the fund i.e. there

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

house property using the above sale consideration. We have also been informed that they have deposited the entire sale consideration in the Long- Term Capital Gains Account Scheme with Andhra Bank MLA’s colony Branch, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and also claimed exemption U/s. 54 in the return filed for the AY 2012-13. We are herewith enclosing

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

penalty cases, reopening\nof assessment, etc. For these reasons, delay has been caused in filing\nof the C.O. He prayed before the bench to condone the delay in filing\nof the appeal. After hearing the Ld. AR, we found that there was\nreasonable cause behind the filing of C.O. by the Revenue.\nAccordingly, we condone the delay and allow

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)

house property', the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income', for the reason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and maintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project approved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Further

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

house property', the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income', for the reason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and maintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project approved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Further

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

house property’, the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income’, for the reason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and maintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project approved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA

PENNINTI VIVEKANANDA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1494/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Penninti Vivekananda Vs. Adit (International Rao, Hyderabad Taxation)-2 Pan:Ayupp1895L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. From the facts discussed earlier, it can be noticed that the addition came to be made on account of change in the head of income for assessing the rental income. We noticed that the assessee had offered rental income under the head “Income from House Property

GANDRA VENKATA RAMANA REDDY,WARANGAL vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(I/C), WARANGAL

In the result appeal is considered partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Gandra Venkata Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ramana Reddy, Income Tax, Circle -1 Warangal. (I/C), Warangal Pan – Aiepg9935A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.V. Chalamaiah Revenue By : Shri M. Naveen Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2018 Order Per B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,76,555/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act On The Reason That Assessee Has Not Declared The Rental Income On The Property. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Leading To The Penalty Are That Assessee Was An Mla & Was Also Carrying Business Of Maintaining A Petrol Bunk & Transport Business In Individual Capacity. In The Course Of Scrutiny Proceedings, A.O Noticed That There Was A Rental Income To The Tune Of Rs. 8,95,000/- From M/S Unitech Wireless & M/S Axis Bank & The Tds Was Credited To The Individual Account & Assessee Also Made The Claim. Since The Corresponding Income Was Not Offered, A.O Asked Assessee As To Why The Same Should Not Be Brought To Tax. It Was 2

house property from the above properties and also from transport business, including income from theatres and total income offered was to the tune of Rs. 36,60,876/-. In the balance sheet of HUF, there are properties shown, whereas in the in the balance sheet of the individual there are no properties shown but only the business assets. In view

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

penalty are, during the relevant FY 2006-07, assessee sold a house property for a consideration of Rs. 2,30,00,000/-. After

K. BALA VISHNU RAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

penalty are, during the relevant FY 2006-07, assessee sold a house property for a consideration of Rs. 2,30,00,000/-. After

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property etc. were found but the assessee has not admitted these incomes to tax either before the DDIT (Inv.) or in his returns of income filed in response to notices u/s.153A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, show cause notices were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to file the cash

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property etc. were found but the assessee has not admitted these incomes to tax either before the DDIT (Inv.) or in his returns of income filed in response to notices u/s.153A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, show cause notices were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to file the cash

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property etc. were found but the assessee has not admitted these incomes to tax either before the DDIT (Inv.) or in his returns of income filed in response to notices u/s.153A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, show cause notices were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to file the cash

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property etc. were found but the assessee has not admitted these incomes to tax either before the DDIT (Inv.) or in his returns of income filed in response to notices u/s.153A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, show cause notices were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to file the cash

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property etc. were found but the assessee has not admitted these incomes to tax either before the DDIT (Inv.) or in his returns of income filed in response to notices u/s.153A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, show cause notices were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to file the cash

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property etc. were found but the assessee has not admitted these incomes to tax either before the DDIT (Inv.) or in his returns of income filed in response to notices u/s.153A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, show cause notices were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to file the cash

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, HYD., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property etc. were found but the assessee has not admitted these incomes to tax either before the DDIT (Inv.) or in his returns of income filed in response to notices u/s.153A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, show cause notices were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to file the cash

SHRI S SUBHASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal for AY 2008-09 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property etc. were found but the assessee has not admitted these incomes to tax either before the DDIT (Inv.) or in his returns of income filed in response to notices u/s.153A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, show cause notices were issued to the assessee asking the assessee to file the cash