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

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 are alternative and without prejudice to one another. 9. The appellant seeks

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

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

234C of the Act with reference to the tax due on the returned income as declared in the income-tax return and not on assessed income. 27. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not granting credit of DDT paid by the Appellant on the dividends distributed

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

234C of the Act with reference to the tax due on the returned income as declared in the income-tax return and not on assessed income. 27. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not granting credit of DDT paid by the Appellant on the dividends distributed

THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

Housing Boards, Public Works Department, etc., acquire immovable property from the public for the purpose of their developmental activities. Huge amounts are disbursed on behalf of these departments as payments of compensation for land acquired including considerable amount of interest on excess compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act.The interest payment made under the Land Acquisition Act are covered

THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

Housing Boards, Public Works Department, etc., acquire immovable property from the public for the purpose of their developmental activities. Huge amounts are disbursed on behalf of these departments as payments of compensation for land acquired including considerable amount of interest on excess compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act.The interest payment made under the Land Acquisition Act are covered

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

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

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, the Appellant prays

OPEN TEXT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

234C of the Act amounting to Rs.3,82,808 and the same is consequential to the above grounds. 16. Levy of penalty under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act." 3. The assessee has raised the additional grounds as under : “10(c)(a). Choice

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

house and no business activities are carried out there. Please explain the nature of work supposed to have been executed by M/s Specturm Infrastructure and where it is avaIlable? ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others Ans. I would like to state that M/s Spectrum Infrastructure is a proprietary concern of Mr. A. Chandrakanth Reddy He has approached

DY. COMMSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

house and no business activities are carried out there. Please explain the nature of work supposed to have been executed by M/s Specturm Infrastructure and where it is avaIlable? ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others Ans. I would like to state that M/s Spectrum Infrastructure is a proprietary concern of Mr. A. Chandrakanth Reddy He has approached

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

house and no business activities are carried out there. Please explain the nature of work supposed to have been executed by M/s Specturm Infrastructure and where it is avaIlable? ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others Ans. I would like to state that M/s Spectrum Infrastructure is a proprietary concern of Mr. A. Chandrakanth Reddy He has approached

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

house and no business activities are carried out there. Please explain the nature of work supposed to have been executed by M/s Specturm Infrastructure and where it is avaIlable? ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others Ans. I would like to state that M/s Spectrum Infrastructure is a proprietary concern of Mr. A. Chandrakanth Reddy He has approached

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. ASR ENGINEERING AND PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

house and no business activities are carried out there. Please explain the nature of work supposed to have been executed by M/s Specturm Infrastructure and where it is avaIlable? ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others Ans. I would like to state that M/s Spectrum Infrastructure is a proprietary concern of Mr. A. Chandrakanth Reddy He has approached

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

house and no business activities are carried out there. Please explain the nature of work supposed to have been executed by M/s Specturm Infrastructure and where it is avaIlable? ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others Ans. I would like to state that M/s Spectrum Infrastructure is a proprietary concern of Mr. A. Chandrakanth Reddy He has approached

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

house and no business activities are carried out there. Please explain the nature of work supposed to have been executed by M/s Specturm Infrastructure and where it is avaIlable? ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. and to others Ans. I would like to state that M/s Spectrum Infrastructure is a proprietary concern of Mr. A. Chandrakanth Reddy He has approached