DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house 15,49,369 property 3 Short Term Capital 10,44,14,475 Gains 4 Income from other 17,65,05,274 NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. sources 5 Total income from (+) various heads other 28,24,69,118 than “Profits and gains of business or profession” 6. However, while computing the total income, the assessee claimed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

96 taxmann.com 155 (Rajasthan). 5. At the outset, we find that the identical issue was decided in favour of the Revenue by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1534/Hyd/2016 in the case of M/s. Thermal Powertech Corporation India Limited for the AY 2012-13 vide Order dated 26/04/2017. The questions framed and answered by the Tribunal

S.M.FASIUDDIN, REPRESENTED BY GPA MR.S.M.QUTUBUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi(Through Video Conference)

96,935/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO has noticed that the 2 ITA.Nos. 1842 & 1843/H/2017 S.M. Qutubuddin & S.M. Fasiuddin assessee has shown 8 properties as belonging to him and his brothers and after retaining one house for self-occupation, the assessee has offered income from 4 properties and for the balance 3 properties

S.M.QUTUBUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi(Through Video Conference)

96,935/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO has noticed that the 2 ITA.Nos. 1842 & 1843/H/2017 S.M. Qutubuddin & S.M. Fasiuddin assessee has shown 8 properties as belonging to him and his brothers and after retaining one house for self-occupation, the assessee has offered income from 4 properties and for the balance 3 properties

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

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. Therefore, an amount of Rs.26,87,500/- pertaining to rental income was rejected by him. So far as the drawal from other Banks of Rs.4,40,000/- is concerned, the Assessing Officer accepted the same. So far as accumulated cash balance of Rs.10,21,000/- is concerned, the Assessing Officer, in absence of any satisfactory explanation given

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

MANOJ KUMAR CHOWRAH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

96,840/-. The A.O. further noted that, the assessee has sold a property for a total consideration of Rs. 74,30,000/-. The A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish relevant details to explain the source for cash deposit and also purchase of immovable property. The assessee has not furnished any details and also not explained the source for cash

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

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

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

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

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

UNILOIDS BIO SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 154 of the IT Act. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that excess allowance of depreciation in respect of factory building cannot be mentioned as a mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s.154 of the IT Act as the conclusion involved a debatable issue and therefore, cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record

UNILOIDS BIOSCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 154 of the IT Act. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that excess allowance of depreciation in respect of factory building cannot be mentioned as a mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s.154 of the IT Act as the conclusion involved a debatable issue and therefore, cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

house property. Further, the assessee also could not be able to justify the amount received from his wife and mother. In absence of any evidence, the arguments of the assessee that, source for purchase of property, is out of amount received from HUF, mother and wife cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made

THE INDUR INTIDEEPAM PRODUCERS MA CO-OP SOCIETIES FEDERATION LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

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

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

96,294/- Commission from LIC 7,81,208/- Jana Suraksha Premium from MACS 13,43,996/- NPS remuneration from PFRDA 4,41,465/- Therefore, it is apparent that the activities of the appellant ire mainly related to Micro Insurance premium from MACS, NPS contribution from MACS, Loan Insurance premium for 1 & 2 year - Aviva Insurance charges from MACS, Commission from

ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

96,302/- by making various additions including the addition made towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from JVG Structures (P) Ltd for sale of land. The addition towards the undisclosed Long-term capital gain from JDA, addition towards difference between sale consideration as per sale deed and guideline value of the property, unexplained investment in land and addition on cash seized

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

96,302/- by making various additions including the addition made towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from JVG Structures (P) Ltd for sale of land. The addition towards the undisclosed Long-term capital gain from JDA, addition towards difference between sale consideration as per sale deed and guideline value of the property, unexplained investment in land and addition on cash seized