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.:

Section 144B i.e. in not serving the Draft assessment order along with Show Cause notice before finalizing the assessment, which would amount to breach of not only Principles of 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

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

144B of the Act on 17.01.2024 determining the total income at Rs.68,82,509/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative

NEHA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), 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.1275/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Neha Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(1) Pan:Asnpj2794B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Siddharth Toshnival राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rajnaj Agarwala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Neha Jain (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.06.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 144B of the Act. Page 3 of 6 ITA No 1275 of 2025 Neha Jain 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT (A) found that Document No. 680/2016 (value Rs.1,76,00,000/-) on the basis of which the addition has been made

NEMI CHAND,GUDUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property, therefore, the entire amount of long term capital gain of Rs. 24,59,649/- by him as exempt under section 54 of the Act. 4. The assessee had further submitted before the AO that M/s. Mishri Developers (supra), comprised of five partners, viz., (a) Sri Rikab Chand; (b) Sri Ugamraj Nahar; (c) Sri Ashok Kumar Kothari

USHASREE BANDARU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyasree Kamineni Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adopk6338C] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.529/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ushasree Bandaru Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Acepb2973M] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals Filed By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Ld.Pcit”) Both Dated 26.03.2024 Passed U/S 263 The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By Both The Assessees. The Grounds Raised In The Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 Are Reproduced As Under :

144B of the Act on 31.03.2022, whereby, additions were made on account of less consideration paid for purchase of the shares and deemed as income u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act to the tune of Rs.18,08,65,688/-. Thereafter, on perusal of assessment record, the Ld.PCIT noted that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under

SATYASREE KAMINENI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyasree Kamineni Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adopk6338C] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.529/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ushasree Bandaru Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Acepb2973M] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals Filed By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Ld.Pcit”) Both Dated 26.03.2024 Passed U/S 263 The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By Both The Assessees. The Grounds Raised In The Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 Are Reproduced As Under :

144B of the Act on 31.03.2022, whereby, additions were made on account of less consideration paid for purchase of the shares and deemed as income u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act to the tune of Rs.18,08,65,688/-. Thereafter, on perusal of assessment record, the Ld.PCIT noted that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under

HITEC CYBERSPAZIO LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

property, held the same as the assessee’s unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 21/03/2024, determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs. 184,02,01,039/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before

VIDYUT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1878/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vidyut Employees Co- The Dcit, Operative Housing Vs. Circle-6(1), Society, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pin – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaaav5182H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

Section, the said notice(s)/orders must have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer ("FAO") and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer("JAO"), as there is no concurrent jurisdiction of FAO and JAO to issue a notice/order under the Income Tax Act. As the impugned notice(s) must have been issued by the FAO, the issuance of the impugned

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 25.02.2024, has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them

ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in\nterms of our above observation

144B of the Act, dated 19/02/2024, therefore, as\nper the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, he cannot\nin the course of present proceedings before us object to the validity of\nthe jurisdiction so assumed.\n22. It would be relevant to cull out the facts that were involved in the\ncase of Deputy Commissioner

SHAILAJA KUNCHALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailaja Kunchala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cfkpk9703B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav – Cit-Dr (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2024

section 282, particularly w.r.t. the businesses carried by Assessees in unorganised sector and thus a notice by registered post or a service through inspector ought to have been made before passing an Ex-parte order. 4. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)-NFAC erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs. 16,41 ,58,541/- made by the Assessing Officer referable

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

Bench: Us:

Section 25B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows deduction of 30% from arrears of rent received before taxing the same as income under the head "Income from House Property". 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal without condoning the delay thereby depriving the appellant to avail the benefits available

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

house property that was received by him from the developer, viz., M/s. Venki Infra & Developers, Nizamabad, claimed the deduction of the entire amount of capital gain under section 54 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee had not offered any capital gain for tax on the transfer of 1041.34 sq yds of land to the developer, viz., M/s. Venki Infra & Developers

MAHESH YADAV ALAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Holding the assessment proceedings as valid despite the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being time-barred as per section 149 of the Act. 3. Confirming the addition of Rs. 9,65,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 4. Computing the interest under section

KAMPASAMUDRAM SRIHARI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

house and the same was done by the other owner who received the part consideration. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessee is only one of the vendors and therefore the entire STCG ought not to have taxed in his hands. 6. The assessment order is rendered invalid

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

144B of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative has further submitted that the learned JAO has acted in a mechanical and arbitrary manner while issuing notices. This act of the learned Assessing Officer is without taking into 47 ITA.No.1527 & 1528/Hyd./2025 consideration the amended provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, as introduced under the Finance

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

144B of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative has further submitted that the learned JAO has acted in a mechanical and arbitrary manner while issuing notices. This act of the learned Assessing Officer is without taking into consideration the amended provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, as introduced under the Finance Act, 2021. He submitted that after the introduction

NARENDRA BALUSU, HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.594/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Narendra Balusu, Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14(1) Pan:Acxpb4000E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Narendra Balusu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 31/10/2023 For The Ay 2021- 22. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

house property, capital gain and other sources, filed his return of income on 31.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs.67,17,470/- after claiming deduction of Rs.3,69,34,545/- u/s 54F of the income tax Act,1961 (“ the Act”) and deduction of Rs.50.00 lakhs Page 2 of 9 ITA No 594 Narendra Balusu u/s 54EC of the Act. The case