GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

144 r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 12/12/2019 by exercising powers conferred under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with a direction to reconsider the issue of additions made towards the consideration paid for purchase of property

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

144 r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 12/12/2019 by exercising powers conferred under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with a direction to reconsider the issue of additions made towards the consideration paid for purchase of property

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

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

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

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

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

68, thus the same has to be removed from the computation of business income and the resultant business loss will increase accordingly. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same. In view of the above directions, the ground no.5 is partly allowed. The ground no.7 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A and 2348. The appellants stated that

SHYAMPRASAD REDDY GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 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)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

Section 144 r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 12/12/2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam vs. DCIT 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. “The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dated

MAMATHA GUBBALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

144 of the Act thus,\nin exercise of the powers vested with him under the “proviso” to section\n251(1)(a) of the Act, set aside the matter to the file of the AO for framing\nof fresh assessment. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the\nCIT(A) are culled out as under:\n\"6. DECISION

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

144 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 68

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

144 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows: 1) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made addition of Rs. 311,88,97,970/- invoking section 68

THATI SATISH KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(12), HYDERABAD

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

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

68 and 69 of the Act, and its sustainability, and the other one is application of higher rate of tax in terms of Section 115BBE of the Act. If the assessee succeeds in his appeal filed against the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144

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 under the head "income from other sources" 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO/NFAC/CIT(A) erred in levying interest under Section 23B and Section 234C of the Act Additional Grounds being raised before the Hon'ble ITAT for the first time 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ADHITHI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

68 of the Act and added the\nsame to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment\n\nwas completed by the Ld. AO under section 144

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 20.03.2022 and 23.03.2022 AND under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 23.09.2022 for A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15, respectively. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 20.03.2022 and 23.03.2022 AND under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 23.09.2022 for A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15, respectively. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 20.03.2022 and 23.03.2022 AND under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 23.09.2022 for A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15, respectively. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 20.03.2022 and 23.03.2022 AND under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 23.09.2022 for A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15, respectively. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144 rws 1448 of the Act, as the order is not digitally signed, since the digital signature is shown as invalid on Page no. 12 of the assessment order and hence the said order is invalid. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding act of the learned

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144 rws 1448 of the Act, as the order is not digitally signed, since the digital signature is shown as invalid on Page no. 12 of the assessment order and hence the said order is invalid. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding act of the learned

NAVDURGA TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

144 of the Act, dated 31/03/2022, and had observed that the addition of Rs. 2,54,59,579/- made by him under section 69A of the Act was as per section 115BBE of the Act 9 ITA 218 and 219/Hyd/2025 Navadurga Transport Company vs. ITO required to be subjected to tax @ 60% + surcharge instead of the normal rates