REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 10 ITA.No.650/Hyd./2023 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

249(3) of Act\nand ought to have contended the delay in filing the appeal and\nadjudicated the grounds on merit.\n4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the\nbasis of merits, rather than dismissing the appeal without\nappreciating that the delay is due to reasons that are beyond the\ncontrol

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TURAIRAO , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

properties sold during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. It has already been discussed above, that the possession with regard to 73.35 guntas took place in A.Y 2007-08 and therefore, the finding of the A.O is factually incorrect as the registered documents are to be relied upon which clearly shows the possession being handed over

HITEC CYBERSPAZIO LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

property, held the same as the assessee’s unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 21/03/2024, determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs. 184,02,01,039/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

house, vide a registered sale deed\ndated 23.07.2011 an amount of Rs.90 lac. Apart from that, it was\nobserved by him that the assessee had made payments of Rs.72\nlacs towards the construction/renovation based on an\nunregistered agreement dated 18.04.2008 in respect of the new\nhouse property. Considering the aforesaid facts, the CIT(A)\naccepted the assessee's claim

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

249 (A.P.) observed that, in terms of Development Agreement -cum- GPA dated 30.12.2015 and subsequent Supplementary Agreement dated 29.04.2016, the assessee has handed-over the possession of the property in exchange of built-up area to the builder which satisfies the conditions provided u/sec.2(47) r.w.s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thus, capital gains arising on account

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

house property and other sources. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.49,28,566/- under section 80IA(4)(iv) in respect of profits derived from the solar power unit. The return of income was filed by the assessee within the extended due date of 15th March, 2022. The audit report in Form No.10CCB was required to be filed before one month

RAJA RAO DEVATHA,KHAMMAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

house property, business and other sources. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 07/07/2017 declaring an income of Rs. 4,17,760/-. Learned Assessing Officer, however, determined the income of the assessee by order dated 01/03/2019, by making addition of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 17,163/-. 3. Insofar as addition

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

house R&D projects, i.e., investment in technology IP development, especially those related to automotive, broadcast, and communication. 28. We, thus, in terms of our aforementioned observations are of the view that Tata Elxsi Ltd (supra) operates in the fields of product design, engineering, and R&D, providing solutions for automotive broadcast, healthcare sectors, and further owns intellectual property

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025