GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

Unexplained money u/s 69A even though the appellant has produced a cash flow statement along with the balance sheet for each year maintained by the appellant which clearly show that the opening cash available with the appellant were sufficient to cover the deposits made during the year. 9. The lower authorities erred in not giving credit of Tax Deducted

ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SUDHEER RAAVI, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

property. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of details submitted by the assessee including date and amount paid to Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained money

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act, even though the source of purchase of jewellery has been explained by the assessee. It is well established principle of law by various decisions that provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied once the nature and source

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act, even though the source of purchase of jewellery has been explained by the assessee. It is well established principle of law by various decisions that provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied once the nature and source

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act, even though the source of purchase of jewellery has been explained by the assessee. It is well established principle of law by various decisions that provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied once the nature and source

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act, even though the source of purchase of jewellery has been explained by the assessee. It is well established principle of law by various decisions that provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied once the nature and source

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act, even though the source of purchase of jewellery has been explained by the assessee. It is well established principle of law by various decisions that provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied once the nature and source

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act, even though the source of purchase of jewellery has been explained by the assessee. It is well established principle of law by various decisions that provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied once the nature and source

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act, even though the source of purchase of jewellery has been explained by the assessee. It is well established principle of law by various decisions that provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied once the nature and source

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act, even though the source of purchase of jewellery has been explained by the assessee. It is well established principle of law by various decisions that provision of Section 69A of the Act cannot be applied once the nature and source

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 and the learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be upheld. 45. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials on record and through the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered

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)

money. The A.O. had also made addition of Rs. 61,44,000/- towards unexplained investment for failure of the assessee to explain source for purchase of the property. Similarly, the A.O. further 4 Manoj Kumar Chowrah observed that, the assessee has computed short term capital gain from sale of property and also claimed cost of improvement

NEMI CHAND,GUDUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property, therefore, the entire amount of long term capital gain of Rs. 24,59,649/- by him as exempt under section 54 of the Act. 4. The assessee had further submitted before the AO that M/s. Mishri Developers (supra), comprised of five partners, viz., (a) Sri Rikab Chand; (b) Sri Ugamraj Nahar; (c) Sri Ashok Kumar Kothari

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SATYA SAYEE BABU DIVI , HYDERABAD

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

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

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. The appellant is aggrieved and is in appeal. 5.3.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR stated that the assessee regularly files his return of income and declares income from salary, House property

VAKULA TIRUNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1153/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Vakula Tirunagari Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(3) Pan:Agjpt8158M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Anil Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/Order

unexplained cash deposits in Para 7 of the assessment order as under: “7. It is noticed from the return of income filed by the assessee for the relevant year, the assessee has declared income from other sources of Rs.38,505/- and income from house property (rental income) of Rs.1,70,844/- and other exempt income (agriculture) of Rs.4

SARDA BRIJGOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1891/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Sarda Brijgopal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-5(1), Pan: Aamhs2717L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms. Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, Dated 30/09/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 18/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house property and income from other sources as was disclosed by him during the subject year and also the preceding three years based on which he had come forth with an explanation that the subject cash deposits of Rs.9.43 lakhs (supra) was sourced out of the aforementioned income that had already been subjected to tax in his hands

MORAMKANTI GOPAL REDDY AND OTHERS,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and taxed same u/s 1I5BBE of the Act. 5.2 During appellate proceedings, no submissions have been uploaded in ITBA portal by the assessee. However, as per the statement of facts filed along with Form No-35, the submission of the assessee is that the appellant Is an HUF deriving income from House Property

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

money received from 10\nindividuals and also furnished their names, but, could not\nsubstantiate his claim with relevant evidences. Even before\nus, the assessee could not furnish any details to\nsubstantiate his claim that, 10 people have paid\nRs.50,000/- each towards donation. Therefore, we cannot\naccept the argument of the assessee. Further, in so far as\nalternative argument

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

house property. ITA No.1142/Hyd/2024 3 4.1 The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee is an employees co-operative society which is for the benefit of Anantapur District “co-operative staff”. The co-operative society has been formed with the object to accept deposits from the employee members and to advance loans to the employee members only. In the course