ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

200/- after claiming exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Learned Assessing Officer on verification, found that the assessee purchased 1,50,000 shares of M/s. Life Line Drugs & Pharma Ltd., at Rs. 6/- per share and sold the same at Rs. 283/- per share in a span of 19 months

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

68 of the Act. 9. Aggrieved by such deletion of the additions, the Revenue is before us in these appeals contending that the primary onus to prove the shareholders creditworthiness lies on the assessee in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

68 of the Act. 9. Aggrieved by such deletion of the additions, the Revenue is before us in these appeals contending that the primary onus to prove the shareholders creditworthiness lies on the assessee in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

68 of the Act: Rs.16,19,208/-; (iv) disallowance towards TDS and VAT payable under section 43B of the Act: Rs. 6,08,694/-; and (v) addition of Rs.3,34,246/- on account of estimated profit on undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246/-, but at the same time declined the assessee’s claim regarding the validity of jurisdiction that

HARIYANA STEEL CENTRE (KDM) PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 is unwarranted. 3. The learned first Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the learned Assessing Officer did not accepted the claim of the appellant for Cross examinations. 2. The ld. AR has submitted that the AO had made the addition of Rs. 2.66 crores in the AY 2011-12 on account of the bogus entries taken

MRL TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

200\n65,15,700\n23\n207\n1,446\n7,549\n98,720\n17,83,620\n24\n25\n26\n1,012\n8,089\n19,974\n1,35,020\n71,88,920\n27\n28\n93\n15,586\n18,606\n1,82,470\n99,29,070\n29\n135\n3,049\n4,328\n37,270\n21,29,570\n30\n596

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 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 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

200 shares of Oasis Cine Communication Ltd and addition of the entire sale proceeds to the income of the assessee: Rs.1,86,32,023/-; and (iv) addition of the 4 Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta vs. ITO amounts claimed by the assessee to have been received as unsecured loans from 11 parties by treating the same as her unexplained money under

M/S COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,613. - without appreciating the fact that the cash payments made by the Appellant on different dates are below Rs. 20,000/- and hence to be allowed. 3. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) ought to have given a clear finding in respect of disallowances made

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB (I) LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,613. - without appreciating the fact that the cash payments made by the Appellant on different dates are below Rs. 20,000/- and hence to be allowed. 3. That on facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) ought to have given a clear finding in respect of disallowances made

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

200/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential customers

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

200/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential customers

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

200/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential customers

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

200/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential customers

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

200/- confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the real estate companies of Kapil Group have been accepting advance for sales of residential / commercial office space by entering into an MOU with potential customers

DHARTI DREDGING & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) TDS, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

68,000/- on account of assessee’s default in not deducting the ITA 509/Hyd/2019 Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd. Hyd corresponding TDS amount. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under. “5.0. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the order of the AO and the written submissions of the A.R. In this case, penalty

SAI SIDDARTHA REDDY ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

200, whereas the company collected share application money from 464 persons. (c) The company has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of share allotment and conversion of share application money into share capital. Further the share application money was used for the purpose of business without actually allotting shares to the investors. (d) As and when the company required

TULSIDEVI AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1707/Hyd/2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 (Huf) Agarwal, Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaihr4527D 901/Hyd/2019 Smt. Priya Darshini Income Tax 2015-16 Kimtee Officer Hyderabad Ward-5(1) Pan:Acfpk7087G Hyderabad 1706/Hyd/2019 Smt. Tulsidevi Agarwal, A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 Hyderabad Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Acppb6958H Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

200 shares whose value was Rs.1/- per share and claimed LTCTG amounting to Rs.40,77,487/- as exempt u/s 10 (38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased 6000 shares of the company @ Rs.10/- per share with a premium of Rs.10/- per share in public offer on 3rd April, 2013. Subsequently, in the month of October

PRIYA DARSHINI KIMTEE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita Assessee Revenue A.Y No 1707/Hyd/2019 Shri Ravindra Kumar A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 (Huf) Agarwal, Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaihr4527D 901/Hyd/2019 Smt. Priya Darshini Income Tax 2015-16 Kimtee Officer Hyderabad Ward-5(1) Pan:Acfpk7087G Hyderabad 1706/Hyd/2019 Smt. Tulsidevi Agarwal, A.C.I.T ( Ods ) 2015-16 Hyderabad Ward 9 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Acppb6958H Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

200 shares whose value was Rs.1/- per share and claimed LTCTG amounting to Rs.40,77,487/- as exempt u/s 10 (38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased 6000 shares of the company @ Rs.10/- per share with a premium of Rs.10/- per share in public offer on 3rd April, 2013. Subsequently, in the month of October