INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

250(6) of the Act for the AY 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised one effective ground in all the four appeals relating to different assessees for the AY 2014-15 and the ground is abridged herein below for adjudication. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in treating the interest income earned by the assessee as “capital receipt” instead

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

250(6) of the Act for the AY 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised one effective ground in all the four appeals relating to different assessees for the AY 2014-15 and the ground is abridged herein below for adjudication. “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in treating the interest income earned by the assessee as “capital receipt” instead

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

250(6) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 2. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in treating the interest income earned by the assessee as “capital receipt” instead of treating it as “income from other source

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

6. The NFAC erred in confining itself to the figure appearing under schedule AL in the return of income since the said figure was mistakenly entered by the accountant ignoring the correct amount of Rs. 36,66,031/- available as opening cash in hand of the Appellant as on 01.04.2016. 7. The NFAC. erred in solely relying on the figure

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

6 Rs. 1,81,90,250/- vide cheque No.896026 dated 28-04-2016, drawn ICICI bank which is including of TDS u/s 194IA. 12.1 Thus, the appellant has factually demonstrated, that the entire sale consideration received on sale of plot was reinvested in a residential property, though the legal formalities of getting the property in the appellant’s name

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

250/- u/s 50C of the Act. 5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer is right in bringing tax the commercial space of 26,148 sq. ft. that was sold/transferred during the year of account and not during the year relevant to assessment year 2019-20. b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

ABDUL SALAM SHAIK,PILER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

250 read with Section 143(3) of the Act\ndated 29.07.2025 whereby an addition of Rs.9,70,000/- has been deleted.\nAccordingly, the issue that survives for adjudication before the Tribunal relates\nto the balance addition of Rs.1,02,28,860/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that\nthe assessee had explained the entire source of investment in the house\nproperty

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -8(1) , HYDERABAD vs. THIRUPALAPPA CHOWDARY NAGELI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Shri Thirupalappa Circle 8(1) Chowdary Nageli, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adbpn9171H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohammed Afzal, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-8, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal 1 & 2 Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition U/ 68 Of Rs.40,50,000/- Under The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Failed To Establish With Documentary Evidences That The Rental Receipts Received In Puttaparthi Were Deposited In Cash In Hyderabad Which Is Far Of Place”.

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act made addition of Rs.40,50,000/-. Page 2 of 13 ITA No 779 of 2020 Thirupalappa Chowdary Nageli 4. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee made elaborate arguments and filed certain additional evidences based on which the learned CIT (A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. After considering

ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SUDHEER RAAVI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed written submissions on the issue and claimed that ,the source for purchase of property is, out of loan taken from assessee’s father viz., Sri RVD Prasad for Rs.1,00,05,000/-and loan taken from

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is\nallowed

250 of the Act\ndt. 29.09.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent\nthe order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.\n2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, without admitting\nthe appeal for adjudication on the reason of belated filing.\n3. The Ld. CTT(A) erred in not condoning the delay