ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act.” In view of the detailed discussion above and the provisions of section 270A

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act.” In view of the detailed discussion above and the provisions of section 270A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act.” In view of the detailed discussion above and the provisions of section 270A

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act.” In view of the detailed discussion above and the provisions of section 270A

SUBBALAKSHMAMMA PINNAMA,THUMMALAGUNTA,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

68,940/- constituted under-reported income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by issuing

PENNINTI VIVEKANANDA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1494/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Penninti Vivekananda Vs. Adit (International Rao, Hyderabad Taxation)-2 Pan:Ayupp1895L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Penninti Vivekananda Rao (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.07.2025 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68,672/- with regard to surrender of the Bajaj Equity Plus Fund in his return of income. Accordingly, this objection of the Ld. DR is factually incorrect and is rejected. On the other hand, the Ld. AR has argued that there is no case of misreporting under section 270A

SRI RAJA REDDY NALLA,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

68 of the Act, related to the entries are found in bank statements, the assessee claims to have supporting material, we are of the view that this issue also requires fresh verification by the Ld. AO. ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 9 13. On the third issue of LTCG, we observe that the assessee contends that some sale deeds

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

68 of the Act, related to the entries are found in bank statements, the assessee claims to have supporting material, we are of the view that this issue also requires fresh verification by the Ld. AO. ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 9 13. On the third issue of LTCG, we observe that the assessee contends that some sale deeds

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

68 of the Act, related to the entries are found in bank statements, the assessee claims to have supporting material, we are of the view that this issue also requires fresh verification by the Ld. AO. ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 9 13. On the third issue of LTCG, we observe that the assessee contends that some sale deeds

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

68 of the Act, related to the entries are found in bank statements, the assessee claims to have supporting material, we are of the view that this issue also requires fresh verification by the Ld. AO. ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 9 13. On the third issue of LTCG, we observe that the assessee contends that some sale deeds

SSNC FINTECH SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

section 270A r.w.s. 274 of the Act.\n3:2.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter,\namend and/or substitute and/or modify in any manner\nwhatsoever modify all or any of the foregoing grounds of\nappeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.”\nBriefly stated facts of the case are that, the\nappellant-company viz., SSNC Fin Tech Services

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1) , TIRUPATI vs. VENKATA SWAMY RAVURI , CHITTOOR

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

sections": [ "143(2)", "143(3)", "68", "115BBE", "270A", "32(1)", "50", "50A", "2(1A)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred

NIRAJITA MITRA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 dated 03.01.2020 which was delay of 4 days. However, it is clearly mentioned in u/s 270AA sub section 2 that - "An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within one month from the end of the month in which the order referred to in clause (a) of sub section- (1) has been received

PRAMEELA PORIKA,SURYAPET vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.593/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Prameela Porika Vs. Acit Suryapet Circle 7(1) Pan:Almpp8561C Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Prameela Porika (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.10.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 7

section 270A of the Act, and the medical evidence placed on record shows that the Page 3 of 7 ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika assessee was under medical treatment around the relevant period. The sequence of events explained by the assessee is consistent, reasonable, and supported by documents. We find no mala fide intention on the part

CALLIDUSCLOUD (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

270A is bad in law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, CallidusCloud India Private Limited, is engaged in the business of providing sales support, marketing and consulting services and software development to its group companies. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2021–22 on 19.02.2022, declaring total income

ALOK KUMAR SIMHARAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

270A of the Act, dated.27.12.2019). The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. The Order made u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2019 is contrary to facts and law. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in not considering the fact of Loss incurred during the current period and making the assumption of estimated average profit

HIGHRADIUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

section 143(1) of the Act, dated 30.11.2021 wherein the income of the assessee company is stated to have been processed at an amount of Rs. 6,55,06,350/-. 68. As is discernible from the record, the assessee company had filed its return of income for AY 2020-21 on 24/12/2020, declaring its income

THE KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.701/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Karimnagar District Cooperative Vs. Income Tax Officer Central Bank Limited Ward-2 Karimnagar Karimnagar [Pan :Aabat0905H] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Dr

270A of the Act vide order dated 06/09/2021. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer levying penalty, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 05/10/2021 and assailed the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer, contending that the Assessing Officer ought to have granted immunity to the assessee as per the provisions of section 270AA