RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS has been deducted u/s.195 of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, in absence of proper explanation offered by the assessee with supporting documentary evidences such as bank statements etc., the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee for assessment u/sec.147 of the Act and issued show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act originally under old procedure

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

Long Term Capital Gains shown by it was on notional basis and not liable for tax at all: 5.1 During the year under consideration, the above lands of 5 acres were sold for Rs. 12,50,00,000/- to Prakruti Infrastructure and Developers (P) Limited and received advances of Rs.4 crores from the purchaser in respect of the above lands

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

long term capital gains of Rs.81,70,729/- to tax. The AO, accordingly, brought it to tax. The AO made a further disallowance of Rs.2,842/- on account of interest on TDS

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

long-term capital asset, and consequently, the benefit of indexation under the second proviso to section 48 of the Act is not available to the assessee. Accordingly, the alternative argument of the assessee is also dismissed. The Second Issue of the assessee relates to addition of 9. Rs.83,62,670/- made by the Ld. AO u/s.40

MADHU KUMAR PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT,(INT. TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

capital gain accrued in the A.Y 2015-16. Further, it is the case of the Assessing Officer that the irrevocable power of attorney was made in favour of the buyer and it constitutes the “transaction” by which the buyer was allowed to take possession of the property in part performance of the contract for transfer, within the meaning of section

VENU GOPAL KARAVADI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Venu Gopal Karavadi, Vs. Ito, Hyderabad. Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Pan- Bdbpk1736J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A Sai Prasad Shri B. Suresh Babu Revenue By : Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-04-2018 Order Per Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Am: This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Hyderabad Dated 06.10.2016. Apart From The Issues Originally Contested In Appeal I.E Addition U/S Sec. 68 Of The It Act Of Two Deposits Of Rs. 4.45 Lakhs & Rs. 7.5 Laksh In Two Banks, Assessee Also Raised The Additional Grounds That Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 Of The It Act Ceased To Survive As The Officer Has Not Made Any Additions On The Issue On Which The Reasons For Reopening Are Based, Hence, A.O Is Not Justified In Making The Addition On Other Issues. We Have Heard Ld. Counsel & Ld. Dr

long term capital gains has escaped assessment under the provisions of Sec. 50C of the IT Act and in the assessment order there is no addition on the so called escapement of income and this aspect was Shri Venu Gopal Karavadi, Hyderabad. accepted by A.O, as Assessee entitled for a deduction u/s 154 of the IT Act. Therefore, since

DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GOCL CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Gocl Corporation Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(2) Pan:Aabcg8433B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Y Ratnakar Revenue By: Smt.Th Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.11.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2009-10. 2. There Is A Delay Of 74 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing Both Sides, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.10,47,14,795/-. The matter was referred to the TPO for determination of the ALP. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order. The assessee approached the DRP who gave directions to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the final assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA/r.w.s. 144C

LADE MADWESH,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(2), KADAPA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lade Madwesh Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadapa Ward-2 Pan:Aabhl5201M Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

term capital gain. The assessee filed rectification against the addition before CPC, but did not succeed in getting any relief from the CPC. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) with the following observation in para no.7 & 8 of his order, sustained the addition made by CPC and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Page

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PRAGNAPUR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the grounds Nos. 1 to 12 are partly allowed

Bench: Us:

Long term capital gain” (LTCG) of Rs. 4,21,57,691/-. The AO called upon the assessee company to furnish complete particulars and documentary evidence in relation to its claim for deduction of “cost of improvement”, viz. bills, labour charges, contractual receipts, bank statements evidencing payments, copies of sale deeds and purchase deed and working of capital gains. In response

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

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERAABAD vs. DEENABABU KONDUBHATLA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

TDS relating to Section 195. 3 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had, during the subject year, sold two immovable properties, on which Long Term Capital Gain

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

long term capital gain disallowing cost of acquisition as well as deduction towards 54F and Rs.1,85,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and thus assessed the total income at Rs.4,89,28,400/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) who passed order in favour

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. Y S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, KADAPA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.670/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Vs. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Kadapa (Appellant) [Pan : Авеpy9557H] (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Hyd/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.670/Hyd/2022) (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Kadapa Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad [Pan : Abepy9557H] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारितीद्वारा /Assessee By: Shri C.A.Vijay Mehta, Ar राजस्वद्वारा /Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr & Ms.K.Haritha, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/12/2024 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of 12/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2

TDS” and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 08.09.2012 was issued and served on the assessee on 13.09.2012 by the DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. Subsequently, as per action plan of the Board, the case was picked up by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 2, Hyderabad for completion of scrutiny assessment

RAJ KUMAR APPALA ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2011-12

Term Capital Gains : Rs. 12,68,000/- iv) Undisclosed TDS receipts : Rs. 15,07,906/- 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. While doing so he noted that although the assessee furnished the written submissions during the course of appeal proceedings, however, the assessee failed to comply with the letter dated

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

TDS credit as per law. The above ground is allowed to that extent accordingly. The Ground nos. 6 & 7 are consequential to the grounds adjudicated above, therefore needs no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before

MURARI SUBHA RAO,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 (Through Video Conference) Murari Subba Rao, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 13(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadpm 2285N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). We find that the assessee during the year had sold the following properties: “(i) Property admeasuring 175 Sq.Yds situated at Plot No 147 (Part), Prashanti Nagar, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR Dist. for a sale consideration as per document at Rs .12,00,000/- (ii) Property admeasuring 175 Sq.Yds situated at Plot No 147 (Part

JUSTICE. B.SUBASHAN REDDY (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

long term capital gain was enhanced by Rs. 7,85,657/- in the hands of each of the assessee. 7. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by agreeing with his view. 8. At the outset, I do not find any merit in the orders of both the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is pertinent

SMT.B.RATNA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

long term capital gain was enhanced by Rs. 7,85,657/- in the hands of each of the assessee. 7. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by agreeing with his view. 8. At the outset, I do not find any merit in the orders of both the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is pertinent