NITIN BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

property within two years from the date of transfer of the original residential house, the substantive condition under section 54(1) of the Act stood fully complied with and that the denial of deduction of Rs. 22,51,617/- was solely on account of non-deposit of the unutilized amount in CGAS as contemplated under section

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

section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2.1. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 74 days. The appellant / Revenue has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In this connection, the appellant has filed an affidavit for condonation of the said delay wherein

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

91,294 29,59,867 Mohammed Jamal Qureshi Sri 3,32,26,155 17,38,037 2,01,69,151 60,06,557 53,12,410 Mohammed Abbas Qureshi Smt. 1,75,90,317 9,20,137 50,75,991 1,15,94,189 NIL Mahmooda & Begum 83,04,150 2.4 It was noted that subsequent to the entering agreement

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 69B. Hence, the addition is restricted to 14,00,000/-. This ground is therefore partly allowed”. 13. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The learned DR strongly challenged the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.4

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

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

house property and does not have any brought forward loss 3[or loss to be carried forward] under the head; or (iii) xxxxx 4[(I) has assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; (IA) has signing authority in any account located outside India; (IB) has income from any source outside India; (IC) has income to be apportioned

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section

VENKATESH GANGAKHEDKAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section