SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, search and Seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of M/s.KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited and also on the directors of the company

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, search and Seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of M/s.KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited and also on the directors of the company

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, search and Seizure operation u/s. 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted in the case of M/s.KMR Estates and Builders Private Limited and also on the directors of the company

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

65,21,520/-. The return was selected for the limited scrutiny to examine the sale consideration of property in ITR, which is less than the sale consideration reported from Form 26QB and large deduction claimed under section 54B, 54C, 54G and 54GA of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer by way of notice under section

SAHODHAR REDDY MUDDASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house property. The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2016–17 on 16.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.5,85,350/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 09.08.2018 in the case of the assessee along with M/s Moksha Infracon Private Limited ( “the developer

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

65,672/- as his share of income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer assessed valuation of jewellery u/s 69A of the Act and invoked provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and that the assessee has not declared the value of jewellery in the books of accounts before the date of search. 16.2. On appeal

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

65,672/- as his share of income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer assessed valuation of jewellery u/s 69A of the Act and invoked provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and that the assessee has not declared the value of jewellery in the books of accounts before the date of search. 16.2. On appeal

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

65,672/- as his share of income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer assessed valuation of jewellery u/s 69A of the Act and invoked provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and that the assessee has not declared the value of jewellery in the books of accounts before the date of search. 16.2. On appeal

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

65,672/- as his share of income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer assessed valuation of jewellery u/s 69A of the Act and invoked provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and that the assessee has not declared the value of jewellery in the books of accounts before the date of search. 16.2. On appeal

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

65,672/- as his share of income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer assessed valuation of jewellery u/s 69A of the Act and invoked provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and that the assessee has not declared the value of jewellery in the books of accounts before the date of search. 16.2. On appeal

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

65,672/- as his share of income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer assessed valuation of jewellery u/s 69A of the Act and invoked provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and that the assessee has not declared the value of jewellery in the books of accounts before the date of search. 16.2. On appeal

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

65,672/- as his share of income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer assessed valuation of jewellery u/s 69A of the Act and invoked provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and that the assessee has not declared the value of jewellery in the books of accounts before the date of search. 16.2. On appeal

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

65,672/- as his share of income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer assessed valuation of jewellery u/s 69A of the Act and invoked provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act and that the assessee has not declared the value of jewellery in the books of accounts before the date of search. 16.2. On appeal

PRADYUMNA AGROS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1033/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Pradyumna Agro Private Vs. Acit Limited Central Circle-2(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aajcp4282H] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad & Shri K.S.Rajendra Kumar, Ar Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Is Erroneous & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Law.

property and made additions towards the difference as unexplained investment. 6. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the appellant and also taking note of the remand report of the Assessing Officer on this issue, rejected the legal ground taken by the appellant, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C

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

MANOHAR REDDY CHERUKU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1625/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Manohar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Cheruku, Hyderabad Central Circle 1(3) Pan:Aelpc8785R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

house property. The assessee filed his return of income for the Page 2 of 8 ITA No 1625 of 2025 Manohar Reddy Cheruku assessment year 2016–17 on 31.03.2017 admitting a total income of Rs.5,98,860/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 09.08.2018 in the case

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

65,50,565/-. Aggrieved upon the orders of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who allowed the appeal of assessee. Later, the Revenue went on appeal before the ITAT, who in turn restored the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for limited purpose of examining and deciding the new issue raised by the assessee

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

property. Accordingly,\nnotices under Section 143(2) as well as under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (\"the Act\") were issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”)\nto the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO\nobserved that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.33,61,000/- in the State\nBank of India