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

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

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

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. 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

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

IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and observing that only the expenditure mentioned u/s 24 is to be allowed, the AO observed that the interest portion of Rs.16,08,014 is not allowable. Further, he also disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.18,50,219/-. 5. Further, the AO also noticed that the assessee has advanced interest free loans amounting to Rs.1

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

NARSIMHA REDDY PINDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18

house property income and agricultural income. During the impugned A.Y, the assessee filed its return of income on 16.2.2018 declaring net taxable income of Page 1 of 6 ITA No138 of 2022 Narsimha Reddy Pindi Hyderabad Rs.4,42,790/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain

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

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, the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- warranted under 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

VINAY KUMAR KONDA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Vinay Kumar Konda, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward -8(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Ajnpk8150F. (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Sathiya Sivaprakasam Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 Date Of Order: 10/02/2022 O R D E R This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Dt.15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Only Grievance In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.5,96,194/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act.

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Briefly the facts are that the assessee, individual, deriving income from house property

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