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

TDS u/s 194IA. 12.1 Thus, the appellant has factually demonstrated, that the entire sale consideration received on sale of plot was reinvested in a residential property, though the legal formalities of getting the property in the appellant’s name did not take place within the time stipulated u/s 54F. Here arises a legal complication. 12.2 The heading of section

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

house property’, the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income’, for the reason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and maintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project approved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA

GNANASEKARAN MANIKANDAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

TDS. The assessee has filed Form 16 which is not disputed by the Department. In the return of income, the assessee has declared salary income of Rs. Rs.8,93,294/- and loss from house property

GNANASEKARAN MANIKANDAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

TDS. The assessee has filed Form 16 which is not disputed by the Department. In the return of income, the assessee has declared salary income of Rs. Rs.8,93,294/- and loss from house property

UPAKAR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENT CIR-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

TDS. The assessee has filed Form 16 which is not disputed by the Department. In the return of income, the assessee has declared salary income of Rs. Rs.8,93,294/- and loss from house property

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

house property. Further, the assessee also could not be able to justify the amount received from his wife and mother. In absence of any evidence, the arguments of the assessee that, source for purchase of property, is out of amount received from HUF, mother and wife cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made

SABIR , SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property', the assessee was eligible for\nclaiming deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income', for the\nreason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and\nmaintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project\napproved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming\ndeduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Further

SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property', the assessee was eligible for\nclaiming deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income', for the\nreason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and\nmaintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project\napproved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming\ndeduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Further

SABIR, SEW 7 PRASAD JV,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property', the assessee was eligible for\nclaiming deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act as ‘business income', for the\nreason that the assessee was merely engaged in developing and\nmaintaining infrastructural facilities which arose out of a project\napproved by the Government of India as an eligible project for claiming\ndeduction u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Further

DHARMENDER SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD -4(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

House Property”, after allowing standard deduction @ 30% and made addition of Rs.2,96,520/-. 4 ITA.No.807/Hyd./2025 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the property has been let-out by M/s. Surajmal Nani Bai Sharma Trust. However, by an inadvertent

KAMALUDDIN HAMED SALMANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

TDS shall 3 Kamaluddin Hamed Salmani be deducted @ 1% on Rs.1,63,25,000/- which worked out to Rs.1,63,250/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noted that, the differential amount Rs.75,250/- (Rs.1,63,250/- - Rs.88,000/-) needs to be brought to tax. 2.1. The Assessing Officer noted that, the assessee has sold a land vide sale deed No.8230 dated

KRISHNA MOORTHY CHADALAVADA,TIRUPATI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

house property. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has paid interest to Sundaram Finance, Shriram Finance, T.J. Finance and W.S. Group without deducting tax at source u/s. 194A of the Act. The assessee was asked to furnish relevant evidences and also explain why addition should not be made on interest paid on borrowed capital and without deducting TDS

KRISHNA MOORTHY CHADALAVADA,TIRUPATI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house property. The\nAssessing Officer further noted that the assessee has paid\ninterest to Sundaram Finance, Shriram Finance, T.J. Finance and\nW.S. Group without deducting tax at source u/s.194A of the Act.\nThe assessee was asked to furnish relevant evidences and also\nexplain why addition should not be made on interest paid on\nborrowed capital and without deducting TDS

PAPAIAH PULIPATI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

house property income of Rs.7,37,766/- u/sec.64(1A) of the Act along with his income and filed the return for the impugned assessment year 2010-2011. The assessee, thereafter, filed rectification application u/sec.154 of the Act before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer duly enclosing the original TDS

PAPAIAH PULIPATI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 14 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri G. Manjunatha

house property income of Rs.7,37,766/- u/sec.64(1A) of the Act along with his income and filed the return for the impugned assessment year 2010-2011. The assessee, thereafter, filed rectification application u/sec.154 of the Act before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer duly enclosing the original TDS

NAFEES SULTANA,HYEDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD.

Bench: Us:

house property”, therefore, her claim for 7 Nafees Sultana statutory deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act was based on misconceived facts, and thus, liable to be rejected. 10. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. 11. Apropos the contention

RAJENDER REDDY GUNNA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD

house property and also explained the\nsource out of funds received from HUF and amount paid by\nhis wife and mother. However, could not file any evidence to\njustify his case. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has made\nthe addition towards unexplained investment in house\nproperty and the learned CIT(A) after considering the\nrelevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition

DCIT-1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALIREDDY, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

house in the city at the time of filing of the return of income. Further, there was no violation of Rule 46A of the I.T Rules, 1962. 11.1 Further, ld. AR also filed a letter dt.24.08.2020 addressed to the assessee by the builder informing that they completed the construction of apartment and that they are handing over the possession