RONAK 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

69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

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

69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause N.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

SRINIVAS CHOWDARY VALLABANENI,SECUNDERAB vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1462/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Srinivas Chowdary Vs. Dy.Cit Vallabaneni, Secunderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Aeipv3757R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

house property and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 05.10.2018 in the cases of various persons, including the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2019–20 under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2019, admitting a total

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

69B to section 69 of the Income Tax Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, an individual, having income from house property

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

69B to section 69 of the Income Tax Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, an individual, having income from house property

DUSHYANTH REDDY JANAMPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

69B to section 69 of the Income Tax Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee, an individual, having income from house property

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

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”.

house property at Gachibowli at Rs.4,32,18,311/- was also treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained in absence of any satisfactory explanation to substantiate the source of the same. The Assessing Officer accordingly invoked the provisions of section 69B

SRINIVAS CHOWDARY VALLABHANENI,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1461/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20)

house property and income from other sources. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 05.10.2018 in the cases of various persons, including the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2019–20 under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2019 admitting a total income of Rs.98

ANNE MANOJ CHOWDARY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

house property and other sources. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Subhagraha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd along with its group companies and connected concerns/individuals on 5.10.2018 during which the case of the assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income

ANNE RAJESWARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

house property and other sources. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Subhagraha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd along with its group companies and connected concerns/individuals on 5.10.2018 during which the case of the assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income

VALLABHANENI SRINIVAS CHOWDARY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA 175/Hyd/2023 & 176/Hyd/2023 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Rajeswara Rao Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ablpa4688A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Anne Manoj Chowdary Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 1(4) Pan:Ainpc5963B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Vallabhaneni Srinivas Vs. A.C.I.T Chowdary Central Circle 1(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeipv3757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Smt.K. Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2023 Order Per Bench: The Above Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.01.2023 Of The Page 1 Of 16

house property and other sources. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Subhagraha Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd along with its group companies and connected concerns/individuals on 5.10.2018 during which the case of the assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 69B are not therefore applicable. (b) The learned AO is not justified in making the addition of Rs.15,15,875/- towards the alleged unexplained investment in the house property

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 69B are not therefore applicable. (b) The learned AO is not justified in making the addition of Rs.15,15,875/- towards the alleged unexplained investment in the house property

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 69B are not therefore applicable. (b) The learned AO is not justified in making the addition of Rs.15,15,875/- towards the alleged unexplained investment in the house property

RAMA MOHAN SOMA,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, HINDUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

section 69B of the Act has no relevance to the facts of the case and hence the said addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- wrongly made u/s 69B of the Act is liable to be deleted. 5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not passing the speaking order against the Ground

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

housing project 'Kumar Padmalaya' which have complied with the conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

housing project 'Kumar Padmalaya' which have complied with the conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

housing project 'Kumar Padmalaya' which have complied with the conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata