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.

Short Term Capital Gains ignoring the directions of DRP to reduce the indexed cost. 3(b) The Ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the period of holding of 23flats in question is more than 3 years from the date of acquisition and hence, resulting capital gain is long-term entitling the appellant for deduction of indexed cost

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 aggregating to Rs. 13,18,002/-, viz. (i). Property - I: Rs. 55,887/- and (ii). Property – II: Rs.12,62,115/- was disclosed in his return

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

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is\nallowed

capital gains / short term\ncapital gains has been offered to tax by Dalmia Bharat\nEnterprises Ltd. The shares were never held by the assessee at\nany point of time, nor the assessee is having any position in\nthe said company. Although the Assessing Officer alleged that\nthe shares of Bharati Cement Corporation Ltd. were held in the\nname of Dalmia

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

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

Bench: Us:

short-term capital gain of Rs. 35,48,200 in respect of sale of building at Hyderabad. The assessee while computing capital gains claimed cost of improvement of property at Rs. 39,69,500 which was paid to contractors for improvement and construction of the property. It was the submission of the assessee that he has purchased a semi-finished

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

Short Term Capital Gains : Rs. 12,68,000/- iv) Undisclosed TDS receipts : Rs. 15,07,906/- 5. In appeal, the learned

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)

short “the Act”] 1961 on 05.08.2016 declaring total income of Rs.49,83,339/-. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/sec.143(3) of the Act on 18.12.2018 by accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. As per the Information available with the Department, the assessee has executed sale deed agreement with a GPA holder, Sri Badruddin Hussain Salmani

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. AMELINANE RAVINDRA CHOWDARY, ANANTAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS on the Expenses, which could have resulted in disallowance of Sec. 40(a)(ia) or disallowance u/s 40A(3) 3) Whether the CIT(A) is right in giving relief in a case decided u/s 144 when the assessee has failed to produce books of accounts before the Assessing Officer, and there by encouraging the assessee to avoid legal consequences

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. AMELINANE RAVINDRA CHOWDARY, ANANTAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS on the Expenses, which could have resulted in disallowance of Sec. 40(a)(ia) or disallowance u/s 40A(3) 3) Whether the CIT(A) is right in giving relief in a case decided u/s 144 when the assessee has failed to produce books of accounts before the Assessing Officer, and there by encouraging the assessee to avoid legal consequences

ACIT, CC-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. LEPL PROJECTS LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

short term capital gains and excess receipts from contract works, respectively, u/s 68 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order on 31.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee has filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition vide pages

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

short term capital gain and income from other sources as well as interest income and rental income. The assessee was never served with the said intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and also filed

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

short term capital gain and income from other sources as well as interest income and rental income. The assessee was never served with the said intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and also filed

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

short term capital gain and income from other sources as well as interest income and rental income. The assessee was never served with the said intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and also filed

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

short, “the Act”). 2. Though the Revenue has raised as many as ten grounds but all the grounds are inter-related and the only effective ground out of them reads as under : 2 “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) is justified in law in allowing relief towards exemption

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

gains before filing the return of income. However, the\nAssessing Officer finalized the penalty order and it came to the\nnotice of the assessee on the last day of hearing of penalty\nproceedings on 25.9.2014 that the AD is going to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in these assessment years. Hence, the\nassessee filed appeals against

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

short term fiend deposits, on outstanding receivables exceeding 30 days relating to sale of services to Al's as on March 31st 2017 and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in upholding the action of Ld. TPO/AO. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO erred

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

Bench: Us :

TDS related to the disputed Assessment Year while computing the demand amount and upheld the impugned Tax demand of Rs 6,80,57,929 8. The learned CIT(A) erred by not appreciating the evidence provided during the process of filing Appeal. 3 Pinki Fresh Foods Limited. 9. For the above reasons, and for any additional reasons that

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