ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

139; or b. determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of i. the amount of income-tax calculated

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED ZEESHANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

139; or b. determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of i. the amount of income-tax calculated

PONAPULA SULOCHANA LR LATE P SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

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

9 of the order, it has been clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carry forward

PONNAPULA SULOCHANA, L/R OF LATE PONNAPULA SANJEEVA PARTHASARATHY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

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

9 of the order, it has been clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carry forward

SHRI GAYATRI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

9 of the order, it has been clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carry forward

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

9: ITA Nos. 1717 to 1720/Hyd/2017 & provisions of Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC, submitted that any claim under Section 80IA would be maintainable and entertainable only if it is made in a return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The conditions prescribed under section 80A(5) and 80AC

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

139; or b. determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 690, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- i. the amount of income-tax calculated

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

9. The assessee also relied on the following decisions: a) Shrikant Mohta vs. CIT (414 ITR 0270 (Cal) b) CIT vs. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology (P) Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 0371 (Bom). c) Nandini Delux vs. ACIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 52 (Bang.) d) ACIT vs. V.N. Devadoss (2013) 093 DTR 0073 e) DCIT vs. Eversmile Construction

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

9. The assessee also relied on the following decisions: a) Shrikant Mohta vs. CIT (414 ITR 0270 (Cal) b) CIT vs. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology (P) Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 0371 (Bom). c) Nandini Delux vs. ACIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 52 (Bang.) d) ACIT vs. V.N. Devadoss (2013) 093 DTR 0073 e) DCIT vs. Eversmile Construction

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

9. The assessee also relied on the following decisions: a) Shrikant Mohta vs. CIT (414 ITR 0270 (Cal) b) CIT vs. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology (P) Ltd (2017) 395 ITR 0371 (Bom). c) Nandini Delux vs. ACIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 52 (Bang.) d) ACIT vs. V.N. Devadoss (2013) 093 DTR 0073 e) DCIT vs. Eversmile Construction

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

9. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned income in place of assessed income as held by courts.” 3. The grounds of appeal in ITA No.121/Hyd/2022 read as under : “1. The order of ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on law and on facts. 2. The ld.CIT

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

9. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned income in place of assessed income as held by courts.” 3. The grounds of appeal in ITA No.121/Hyd/2022 read as under : “1. The order of ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on law and on facts. 2. The ld.CIT

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

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

9. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned income in place of assessed income as held by courts.” 3. The grounds of appeal in ITA No.121/Hyd/2022 read as under : “1. The order of ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on law and on facts. 2. The ld.CIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

68,020/-) is disallowed and added back to the income returned. Addition: Rs. 271,70,42,063/- 13 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. 7. The CIT-DR submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, as well as Sections 32AC and 32AD, need to be examined. For this purpose, he drew

JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Jaya Balaji Real Media Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecb3005F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2024

9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. submitted that, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions made by the AO towards source for cash deposit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, without appreciating the fact that books of accounts, as defined in Section

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

9. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the addition made by the A.O. towards opening capital under Section 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search and claimed that, the additions made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. The assessee had also contested

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

9. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the addition made by the A.O. towards opening capital under Section 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search and claimed that, the additions made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. The assessee had also contested

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

9. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the addition made by the A.O. towards opening capital under Section 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search and claimed that, the additions made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. The assessee had also contested