PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

section 68 & 69 of the Act have no application in absence of maintenance of books of account, we accept the alternate contention of the assessee that only 40% of the amount should be added. We direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 40% of Rs.94,50,000/- as against the whole amount made by the Assessing Officer

GOWRI GOPAL HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Lilet Kumar & Shri L. P. Sahum/S. Gowri Gopal Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aaccs 9035Q …..Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.K. Gupta, C.A. Respondent By : Shri T. Sunil Goutam. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2013-14 Arises From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad Dt.29.07.2019. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Learned A.R. In The Present Appeal Is As Under :

section 68 of the Act. As the assessee had allegedly returned back the share application money in subsequent year which, as per the case of the assessee was accepted by the revenue in the subsequent assessment years and no additions were made thereof. 14 7.5 In the light of the above discussion, we deem it appropriate to remit

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

124 (Calcutta) 2. Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 285 (SC) 3. Pr. CIT Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd., [2020] 113 Taxmann.com 599 (SC) 4. Sesa Starlite Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2021] 123 Taxmann.com 210 (Bombay) Spandana Spoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd. 5. Param Transport (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, [2019] 102 Taxmann.com

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

124 (Calcutta) 2. Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 285 (SC) 3. Pr. CIT Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd., [2020] 113 Taxmann.com 599 (SC) 4. Sesa Starlite Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2021] 123 Taxmann.com 210 (Bombay) Spandana Spoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd. 5. Param Transport (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, [2019] 102 Taxmann.com

BIKASH KUMAR KEDIA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

Section 260-A of the Act, 1961.” 16. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central) vs. Sunita Dhadda in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.9432/2018 dated 28/03/2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. 17. Coming back to the case

SUBHASH KUMAR KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

Section 260-A of the Act, 1961.” 16. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central) vs. Sunita Dhadda in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.9432/2018 dated 28/03/2018 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. 17. Coming back to the case

DILEEP KUMAR SAKAMURI CHENCHU VENKATA,SRIKALAHASTI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Us:

68,428/- as the assessee’s income from other sources. 5. Thereafter, the assessee furnished before the AO documentary evidence in the course of the assessment proceedings, viz. the bank 4 Dileep Kumar Sakamuri Chenchu Venkata vs. ITO statements, cash-flow statements, computation of income, balance sheet, sales/purchase ledgers and an amended partnership deed, but did not furnish corroborative documents

VENKATA RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU CHINTALAPATI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us.

68,22,677/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal vide an ex-parte order. 5. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Learned Authorized

SATISH NAGESH KULKARNI,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1025/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satish Nagesh Kulkarni, Vs. Dcit, Secunderabad. Circle-10(1), Pan: Begpk9791B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 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 06/01/2024, 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 29/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out, as under: “Findings and Decision 4. The facts of the case as per record are that the Assessee-Individual filed return of income

SHAIK ABDUL AZIZ,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARIMNAGAR

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specified by CBDT vide No. 246/151/2017-A&PAC-1; v. ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Mr. Nitin Kumar Shah, Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1489/Hyd/2012. Dt. 11-10-2013; vi. CIT Vs. Qatalys Software Technologies Limited [308 ITR 249]; vii. Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust

SHAIK ABDUL AZIZ,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARIMNAGAR

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specified by CBDT vide No. 246/151/2017-A&PAC-1; v. ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Mr. Nitin Kumar Shah, Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1489/Hyd/2012. Dt. 11-10-2013; vi. CIT Vs. Qatalys Software Technologies Limited [308 ITR 249]; vii. Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust

SULTANA RAFAT, ,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARIMNAGAR, KARIMNAGAR

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specified by CBDT vide No. 246/151/2017-A&PAC-1; v. ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Mr. Nitin Kumar Shah, Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1489/Hyd/2012. Dt. 11-10-2013; vi. CIT Vs. Qatalys Software Technologies Limited [308 ITR 249]; vii. Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

68-71 Letter by Elite Enterprises requesting to withdraw notice under section , I 3(2) of SARFESI Act, 2002 31 03-1 1-20 15 72-73 Further reply submitted requesting to keep the collection on hold till the bills are released by Elite Enterprises 32 17-11-2015 74 Possession notice for immovable property issued by SBI under

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

68-71 Letter by Elite Enterprises requesting to withdraw notice under section , I 3(2) of SARFESI Act, 2002 31 03-1 1-20 15 72-73 Further reply submitted requesting to keep the collection on hold till the bills are released by Elite Enterprises 32 17-11-2015 74 Possession notice for immovable property issued by SBI under