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

SARDA BRIJGOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1891/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Sarda Brijgopal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-5(1), Pan: Aamhs2717L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, Dated 30/09/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 18/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

234B of the Act on the addition of Rs. 10,43,500 made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act. 7. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 21/07/2017 declaring an income of Rs.4,32,150/-. The return

KANISHKA 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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVINDA RAJULU DHONDU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2019-20

house property and other sources. The assessee also derived income from Capital Gain in respect of property situated in USA. For the assessment year 2019-20, he filed his return of income in ITR-2 admitting total income of Rs. 6,18,77,640/- which includes Long Term and Short-Term capital gain derived outside India (in USA) amounting

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

V, NISHITHA REDDY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

house property admeasuring 629 sq.yards plot bearing No. 530-A, situated at Hakimpet Village, Huda at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad vide registered sale deed No. 4627 of 2006 dated 21/08/2006 at a sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/- against the fair market value of Rs. 1,88,70,000/- as per SRO. The assessee did not file her return

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

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.:

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 of Rs. 22,97,212/-. Subsequently

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

234B and 234C of the Act amounting to INR 13,94,11,560 and INR 5,80,865 respectively. 26. Without prejudice to the above ground, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO ought to have computed interest under Section 234C of the Act with reference to the tax due on the returned

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

234B and 234C of the Act amounting to INR 13,94,11,560 and INR 5,80,865 respectively. 26. Without prejudice to the above ground, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO ought to have computed interest under Section 234C of the Act with reference to the tax due on the returned

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

KHAIRUNNISA,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Khairunnisa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, R/O.8-5-85, Ward 11(3), Road No.1, Hyderabad. Mallikarjuna Colony, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Pan : Anvpk4801B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sandhya, Advocate, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R, Appeared Through Virtual Mode. Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2024

234B of the I.T. Act. 8. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is an individual, has sold her house bearing MCH No.8-2-602/22, admeasuring 100 Sq.yards situated at Zehra Nagar, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad for a total consideration of Rs.9