DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global Pvt.Ltd.(supra), he reiterated that the 28 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit granted by the AO and thereby enhancing the assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global Pvt.Ltd.(supra), he reiterated that the 28 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit granted by the AO and thereby enhancing the assessment

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

house property and does not have any brought forward loss 3[or loss to be carried forward] under the head; or (iii) xxxxx 4[(I) has assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; (IA) has signing authority in any account located outside India; (IB) has income from any source outside India; (IC) has income to be apportioned

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

d) on 29.03.2023, wherein, the AO has recorded that, despite sufficient time allowed to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 148A(b) for compliance to the show cause notice dated 21.02.2023, there is no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the said show cause notice. The AO decided that it is a fit case for issue

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 06.07.2022 for the A.Y 2015-16, on the following grounds : “1. In computing the total income, the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the order

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

d) of Section 269-UA Explanation-2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

d) of Section 269-UA Explanation-2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the applicability of section 28(via) in respect of the unsold inventory treated as capital asset.” 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 is addition towards unexplained cash receipts from sale of property amounting to Rs.1,42,92,500/-. The facts

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

D) The appellant has entered into an agreement of sale with M/s Jayabheri Properties Pvt.Ltd., & Others on 29-04-2016, for purchase of a plot for Rs. 1,34,000/- (Schedule A Property) along with Residential villa / house (Schedule B property) for total cost of Rs. 5,68,48,500/-. In lieu of the above, as per the agreement

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

17,720/- u/sec.147 r.w.s.144\nr.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short \"the Act\"], 1961,\nvide order dated 12.12.2024.\n4.\nBeing aggrieved by the assessment order, the\nassessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a\ndelay of 37 days. The learned CIT(A) after considering the\nsubmissions of the assessee, disinclined to condone the delay

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

5 Himsagar Krishna Vs. Pr. CIT, Tirupati order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.03.2022 was thereafter passed by the A.O, wherein the income of the assessee as was originally assessed was accepted as such. 7. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, “Pr. CIT”) after culmination of the assessment proceedings, called for the assessment record