RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

234A and 234B on the assessed income and thus the ground no.7 is dismissed accordingly. The ground no. 1 and 8 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 9. The explanation given by the assessee was examined by the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) and by the Bench also, on examination

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

234A and 234B on the assessed income and thus the ground no.7 is dismissed accordingly. The ground no. 1 and 8 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 9. The explanation given by the assessee was examined by the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A) and by the Bench also, on examination

NAVEEN KUMAR MUSINIPALLY,USA vs. ADIT (INT-TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

house received by the assessee in pursuance to JDA of the property as deduction u/sec.54F of the Act.\n9. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal.\n10. CA, KC Devdas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the notice issued by the ACIT, [INTL-TAXN

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:

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.A., the learned Authorized Representative (for short ‘Ld. AR’) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that the captioned appeal involves a delay of 8 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had occasioned

KOTHARI BIPIN MILAN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1387/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Kothari Bipin Milan Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Ahbpk8344D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Ghanshyamlal Upadhyay राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Mrs. Vishnu Priya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/Order

234A Rs 102004 234B of Rs 180720 and Rs 2466 under section 234C without treating the amount of Rs Page 2 of 10 ITA No 1387 of 2024 Kothari Bipin Milan 18,65,000 seized by them as amount of taxes paid on the date of seizure and thereby causing double jeopardy on your appellant. 8. The aforesaid grounds

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

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

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the\nIncome-Tax Act, 1961.”\n3. Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.A., the learned Authorized\nRepresentative (for short ‘Ld. AR') for the assessee, at the\nthreshold of hearing, submitted that the captioned appeal involves\na delay of 8 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay,\nthe Ld. AR submitted that the same had occasioned

SUJATHA KUMAR,BANASHANKARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1439/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year – 2016-2017 Mrs. Sujatha Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru – 560 085 Ward-1, Gudur-524101. Vs. Andhra Pradesh Pan Ahmpk3172C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Siddesh Nagraj Gaddi राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. Ar

house-wife and senior citizen, we condone the delay of 97 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. “The order of the Ld.AO, insofar as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, and the weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld.AO's order

BALARAJ GUTTAMIDI ,MANIKONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Balaraj Guttamidi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), R/O. Rangareddy. Hyderabad. Pan : Btlpg4930J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2022

house for living, though in the name of his son. 5. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax should have appreciated that the object of the provision to Section 54 and 54F is to promote investment in residential property and that the appellant has complied with that condition. Therefore, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax should have directed

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

234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 12. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

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

234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 4 ITA.No.1527 & 1528/Hyd./2025 12. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Properties belonging to assessee on 17.02.2010. Assessee filed his return of income admitting income of Rs.2,88,166/- on 26.09.2011 in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued to assessee. Finally, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C for a total income of Rs.36

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Properties belonging to assessee on 17.02.2010. Assessee filed his return of income admitting income of Rs.2,88,166/- on 26.09.2011 in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued to assessee. Finally, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C for a total income of Rs.36

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Properties belonging to assessee on 17.02.2010. Assessee filed his return of income admitting income of Rs.2,88,166/- on 26.09.2011 in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued to assessee. Finally, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C for a total income of Rs.36

TALLURI VENKATA KRISHNA KISHORE ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 Talluri Venkata Krishna Vs. Acit, Kishore, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abkpt 0174 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Hari Prasad Revenue By: Sri T. Sunil Golutam, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

234A and 234B of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged as Director in M/s. Infobahn Corporation Limited deriving income from salary, house property, business and income from other source. The assessee filed his return of income for the relevant AY on 3/2/2011 admitting total income

K RAGHURAMA KRISHNA RAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 K. Raghurama Krishna Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Raju, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(2), Pan: Altpl9688G. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2009-10 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 28.12.2018 In Case No.27/2017-18/Dcit Cc-1(2)/Cit(A)- 11/2018-19/Hyd Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’].

house property, business and income from other source. The assessee filed his return of income for the relevant AY on 3/2/2011 admitting total income of Rs. 22,97,212/-. Subsequently the case was taken up for scrutiny and the notice U/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 18/11/2013 and thereafter assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

234A of the Act of INR 46,47,052, without giving cognizance to the fact that there was no delay in filing the income-tax return by the Appellant for the A Y 2016-17. 25. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under Section 234B and 234C

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

234A of the Act of INR 46,47,052, without giving cognizance to the fact that there was no delay in filing the income-tax return by the Appellant for the A Y 2016-17. 25. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under Section 234B and 234C

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. NALGONDA DIOCESE SOCIETY, NALGONDA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alakamony, A.M. & Shri S.S.Godara, J.M.

properties, did not find any violation of any condition as approved u/s 12A No other violation of Section 11 or 13 is pointed out by Assessing ITA No. 2063/Hyd/2017 AY 2011-12 Nalgonda Diocese Society, Nalgonda Officer It is also not disputed that registration u/s 12A is in force. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Assessing Officer