KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

house property\".]\nExplanation. -For the purposes of this section,-\n66\n[***]\n67\n[***]\n\"net consideration\"68, in relation to the transfer

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

68,370/-\nby an amount of Rs.7,58,13,772/-. Apart from that, the A.O.\ndeclined the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 of the\nAct on two grounds, viz. (i) the assessee had not purchased the new\nresidential house within two years from the date of transfer of the\noriginal asset; and (ii) the assessee owned more

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

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 of the vendor/developer of the second part as under

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68 (SC) ii) Mrs. Margrit Goverdhan Vs. ITO (023) 458 ITR 91 (Kar) iii) Ld. PCIT(C) Vs. Sri Sai Lakshmi Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 458 ITR 373 (Kar) iv) Darshana Anand Damle Vs. DCIT (2023) 459 ITR 60 (Bom) He submitted that on identical facts and identical clauses of the JDA, the Hon'ble High Courts have held that

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68 (SC) ii) Mrs. Margrit Goverdhan Vs. ITO (023) 458 ITR 91 (Kar) iii) Ld. PCIT(C) Vs. Sri Sai Lakshmi Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 458 ITR 373 (Kar) iv) Darshana Anand Damle Vs. DCIT (2023) 459 ITR 60 (Bom) He submitted that on identical facts and identical clauses of the JDA, the Hon'ble High Courts have held that

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Sabitha Anand Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hospital, Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Abwfs9326E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Running A Hospital In The Name Of M/S. Sabitha Anand Hospitals. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,70,540/-. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 27.9.2016. Consequent To The Survey Operation, The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Of Page 1 Of 17

house property. The assessee also argued that the assessee has utilized inferior quality of material which is not at par with the specification of the material as per govt. standard for which the DVO himself gave a deduction of 10%. Further, it was argued that the construction of the building started in financial year

GONUGUNTLA NIRMALA DEVI,ANANTAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property'. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the addition of Rs.48,09,502/- made by the Assessing Officer was without considering the deduction towards vacancy allowance and ignoring the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred

GOPAL AGARWAL,,HYDERABAD vs. DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

house property and other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs.14,87,486/- and agricultural income of Rs.16,12,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee to which the A.R of the assessee appeared Page

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 being interest from Bank. The assessee filed his return of income on 8/8/2008 declaring total income of Rs.28,78,260/-. The return of income was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Later on, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 06/07/2012

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

housing\nloan of Rs.15,00,000/- from Andhra Bank on 30.11.2016 and the said loan was\nalso utilised for the purchase of the property. The relevant portion of the written\nsubmission of the assessee in this regard is reproduced as under:\n3. Loan from Andhra Bank Abdul Salam (RF No.255 2781/2016) for Rs\n15,00,000/-\nAO's findings:\nThe

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

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

68,697/-) contending that no evidence in support of these\nexpenses were produced by the assessee. As there was difference in\nthe value of sale consideration shown by the assessee and the value as\nper SDV, at the request of the assessee, the Ld. AO referred the issue\nto the Learned Departmental Valuation Officer (“Ld. DVO\") for\nvaluation

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

SAMPATHI VENKATA SUBBAIAH,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

property. Once again, the assessee did not choose to file any response to the show-cause notice. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed best Judgment assessment order under section 144 r.w.s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,68,000/- by making addition of Rs.7 lakhs towards income from house

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abfpa5945G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2025

house property and other sources during the year and therefore he is not required to maintain books of accounts, yet the additions have been made u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 3. As the assessee does not maintain books of accounts, the provisions of section