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

34,000/- (Schedule A Property) along with Residential villa / house (Schedule B property) for total cost of Rs. 5,68,48,500/-. In lieu of the above, as per the agreement of sale, the purchaser has paid an amount of Rs3,05,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores and five lakhs only) towards earnest /advance sale consideration in favour

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

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

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

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

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

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

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

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

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

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

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

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

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

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

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

34,430/- which was the total income declared in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act on 29.09.2021 and determined the total income at Rs.4,47,29,559/- by making various additions, including addition towards unaccounted cash receipts towards

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

house rent, capital gain and other sources and there is no income under the head “business or profession”. The transactions of the acquisition of shares by the assessee of these 3 companies are in the nature of investments and therefore, there is no involvement in business activity on the part of the assessee while acquiring the shares of these

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

BBR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

House Property. 6. On this aspect, since verification is necessary, we deem it just and proper to direct the learned Assessing Officer to verify the Memorandum/Articles of Association/relevant part of the audited annual accounts as to the clarification on the aspect of the business/profession of the assessee and if it is construction and letting out of the property then

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

34,000/-.\n7.3 In the result, the first issue of the assessee is allowed.\n8.\nWith regard to second issue, related to cost of improvement of\nRs.7,50,000/-, the Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee has incurred\ncost of Rs.2.50 lakhs; Rs.2 lakhs; Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh during the\nF.Ys

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

house property’, the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income’, for the reason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and maintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project approved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA

ALLAM ADAVAIAH ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

34. It can be seen from the records that purchaser has categorically confirmed the following facts in the letter addressed to the Assessing Officer; a. that possession has been taken over by the purchaser in 1994 and b. payments have been made for the full consideration ranging over a period of time supported by the account extracts from the books

TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

House Property” in the hands of the partners in their capacity as that of respective co-owners. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Tribunal in ITA No. 418/Hyd/2004 dated 02.06.2005 for A.Y. 2001–02 are culled out as under: 9 Tirumala Estates, Hyderabad. “7. Undoubtedly, the lower authorities are bound to give effect to the directions issued

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

house property u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as made by A.O of Rs.1,56,500/- as capital gain on sale of immovable property. 18. The Ld. CIT ought to appreciate the fact that Ld. Appellant may add or alter or modify or substitute or delete

KRISHNAKUMAR MANDA,MEDCHAL vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

house property u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as made by A.O of Rs.1,56,500/- as capital gain on sale of immovable property. 18. The Ld. CIT ought to appreciate the fact that Ld. Appellant may add or alter or modify or substitute or delete