KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025

house bearing Municipal No.17-1-336/1/29, Plot No.29, situated at S.N. Reddy Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad for a total sole consideration of Rs.43,50,000/- vide Sale deed No 4535/2016, dated 12.09.2016. During this transaction, the vendor accepted Rs.43,50,000/- in cash in contravention to the provision of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which attracts penalty u/s.271D. Section 269SS

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

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

246A of the Act before ld.CIT(A)-3, who vide order dt.31.05.2022 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted that due to delay of two days in filing return of income

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

246A of the Act before ld.CIT(A)-3, who vide order dt.31.05.2022 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted that due to delay of two days in filing return of income