GUNDALA MAHENDER,,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी /

68,790/- respectively. Assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 3,12,500/-. Assessment under section 143(3) of Act was complete by order dated 31/12/2011 denying the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54F

GUNDALA SARVOTTAM RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण वर्ा / अपीलधर्थी / प्रत् यर्थी /

68,790/- respectively. Assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 3,12,500/-. Assessment under section 143(3) of Act was complete by order dated 31/12/2011 denying the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54F

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 (Rs.17,31,763/-), the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition on account of highest peak credit in the bank accounts of the ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 6 assessee, contending that the assessee failed to explain the sources of such credits in the bank accounts. He argued that, all entries are reflected

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 (Rs.17,31,763/-), the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition on account of highest peak credit in the bank accounts of the ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 6 assessee, contending that the assessee failed to explain the sources of such credits in the bank accounts. He argued that, all entries are reflected

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 (Rs.17,31,763/-), the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition on account of highest peak credit in the bank accounts of the ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 6 assessee, contending that the assessee failed to explain the sources of such credits in the bank accounts. He argued that, all entries are reflected

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 (Rs.17,31,763/-), the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition on account of highest peak credit in the bank accounts of the ITA Nos.1309 to 1312/Hyd/2024 6 assessee, contending that the assessee failed to explain the sources of such credits in the bank accounts. He argued that, all entries are reflected

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

Section 2(13) of the Act. It has not been defined in the Income-tax Act. As far as the dictionary meaning of the word 'adventure' is concerned, it implies a pecuniary risk, a venture, a commercial enterprise. The word 'venture' in its turn is defined as a commercial activity in which there is a risk of loss

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

68, Mansoorabac Village, Saroor nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide Sale Deed dated 16/12/2011 registered as Doc. No. 5079/2011 for total sale consideration of Rs. 24,20,00,000. The sale deed was executed by 8 persons in favour of the assessee viz., Smt. K. Urmila Reddy, Sri K. Prabhakar Reddy, Smt. K. Sarita Reddy, Smt. K. Vijita Reddy

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

54F proportionately to amount invested. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Customs vs. DilipKumar & Co [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 / 69 GST 239 (Supreme Court) enunciated the following two principles while interpreting exemption clauses: (1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

68 ITA.No.1527 & 1528/Hyd./2025 “6. Analysis and Findings : Section 54F allows exemption of capital gains if the net sale

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

section 54F on account of the assessee having two residential properties. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that ground no.2 which deals with two residential properties does not borne from the record and therefore, the Revenue is not permitted to urge the said 11 ground before us being not arising out of the assessment order

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

68. In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022 - the period of two weeks -is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A

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:

68 of the Act. 21. Be that as it may, as we have quashed the penalty imposed by the AO with respect to the addition of Rs.1.86 crores (supra) for the reason that the assessee has assailed the said quantum addition as was sustained by the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana which has, inter alia, admitted

HANMANDLU PAMPATI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F\nwere misunderstood by the Ld. AO as against the\nlegislative intention and also existing judicial\npronouncements already placed on record during the\nassessment proceedings which is quite evident from the\ndecision relied upon.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete\nany of the grounds as aforesaid during the course of\nGeneral Appwellate proceedings. and would submit

SRINIVAS PAMPATI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68%. The Stamp Duty Authority determined the total value of the JDA at Rs.10,26,80,000/-. Accordingly, on the basis of the valuation done by Stamp Duty Authority, the Ld. AO computed the assessee’s share therein at Rs.1,71,13,333/-. The Ld. AO called for details regarding cost of acquisition as well as claim of exemption under

SANJAY KUMAR SANGHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2012-13 Sanjay Kumar Sanghi, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 12(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5491R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/03/2022

54F, which is a plausible method. Therefore the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, order under section 263 is bad in law. 8. For these and such other grounds that may I General be urged at the time of hearing your appellant prays that

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:

68,699/- by treating the entire amount of cash deposited in the bank accounts as unexplained money u/s 69A ignoring the submissions and contentions made by the appellant that amount deposited in bank pertain to the firm M/s. R P Granites, Mudigonda, Khammam of which the appellant s wife is the Managing Partner and that the same were accounted

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:

68,699/- by treating the entire amount of cash deposited in the bank accounts as unexplained money u/s 69A ignoring the submissions and contentions made by the appellant that amount deposited in bank pertain to the firm M/s. R P Granites, Mudigonda, Khammam of which the appellant s wife is the Managing Partner and that the same were accounted