EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

RAGHUNATH REDDY GANGARAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M. V. Prasad, C.A., referring to petition filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground, submitted that, the assessee has taken a legal ground

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1330/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Constructions The Income Tax Officer, Nirmal. Telangana. Ward-1, Vs. Pin – 504 106. Nirmal – 504 106. Pan Aapfk1280K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar,Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

144A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may be invoked in suitable cases. Further, to prevent fishing and roving enquiries in these cases, it is desirable that these cases are invariably picked up for Review/Inspection by the administrative authorities. 6. The above directive shall be applicable from the date of its issue and shall apply to the pending "Limited Scrutiny

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

section 28(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as this is not an income from his business activity or exercise of profession. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue filed the present appeal. 7. Before the Tribunal, the learned DR has submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) is incorrect both on facts