BIKASH KUMAR KEDIA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

Capital Gain. We find that the Page 26 of 33 ITA 707 & 405 of 2020 Subhash Kumar Kedia & Other learned Counsel for the assessee has filed the final order passed by the SEBI u/s 15(1) of Securities & Exchange Board of India (procedure for holding inquiries and imposing penalties

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

capital gains is hereby rejected and the receipts from the project are treated as business income only and assessment is completed accordingly and penalty

NADELLA MUNIKANNAIAH ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 N.Dathri L/R Of Late Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) Nadella Muni Kannaiah Tirupati C/O. Katrapati & Andhra Pradesh Associates 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1St Floor Ashok Nagar,Street No.1 Hyderabad-500 020

penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) of the I.T.Act, 1961 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in not considering the fact that the year of taxability of capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Capital Gains Account Scheme in October 2022 but agreement with Construction contractor is only for Rs.2,02,30,000, E. Only 6 per cent of total area of land is being constructed upon. The intention of legislature is to allow exemption for purchase/construction of residential house and not towards purchase of vacant plot of land; 42) Conclusion drawn In view

ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

capital gain of Rs.22,02,745/- in respect of sale of shares of PIL which were purchased for a paltry sum of Rs.75,197/- and sold for RS.22,77,943/-. The AO, on verification of the credentials of PIL and other attending circumstances, observed that PIL was included in the list of penny stock companies in enquiries conducted

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

capital gain of Rs.22,02,745/- in respect of sale of shares of PIL which were purchased for a paltry sum of Rs.75,197/- and sold for RS.22,77,943/-. The AO, on verification of the credentials of PIL and other attending circumstances, observed that PIL was included in the list of penny stock companies in enquiries conducted

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

capital gain of Rs.22,02,745/- in respect of sale of shares of PIL which were purchased for a paltry sum of Rs.75,197/- and sold for RS.22,77,943/-. The AO, on verification of the credentials of PIL and other attending circumstances, observed that PIL was included in the list of penny stock companies in enquiries conducted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(3), HYDERABAD vs. MECHINENI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2015-16 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Mechineni Projects (P) Central Circle 3(3) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecp4421H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.9.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee, A Company (Formerly Known As Pbr Projects Pvt. Ltd) Engaged In The Business Of Construction Of Residential & Commercial Buildings, Originally Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Admitting A Total Income Of Rs.1,16,090/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Wase Conducted In M/S. Raghuram & Trishala Group On 21.11.2017 & Warrant In The Case Of M/S. Mechineni Projects (P) Ltd I.E., The Assessee

capital gain in the hands of the assessee. We find the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the learned DR that when the assessee himself has admitted the cost of construction at Rs.2200/- per sq. ft, the assessee now cannot change its stand

JILLELA DASARATHA REDDY, REP BY GPA HOLDER, J PEDDA VENKATA REDDY , HYDERABAD ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gain" cannot arise on the basis of uncertain or indefinite future contingencies or hypothetical and imaginary estimations" (b) In the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (158 ITR 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court - also held that "it is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable". It held that

R. SUBBA LAXMI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gain" cannot arise on the basis of uncertain or indefinite future contingencies or hypothetical and imaginary estimations" (b) In the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (158 ITR 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court - also held that "it is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable". It held that

VISWANATHA REDDY POTHAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gain" cannot arise on the basis of uncertain or indefinite future contingencies or hypothetical and imaginary estimations" (b) In the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (158 ITR 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court - also held that "it is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable". It held that

M.S. LAKSHMI BAI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gain" cannot arise on the basis of uncertain or indefinite future contingencies or hypothetical and imaginary estimations" (b) In the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (158 ITR 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court - also held that "it is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable". It held that

KHAMBHAMPATI JAYALAKSHMI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gain" cannot arise on the basis of uncertain or indefinite future contingencies or hypothetical and imaginary estimations" (b) In the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (158 ITR 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court - also held that "it is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable". It held that

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

capital gains as ‘un-accounted income’; and it is for the assessee to establish creditworthiness of companies and that rise of price of shares within a short period of time was genuine, genuineness could not be established merely on basis of documents like bank details, purchase/sale documents and detail of demat account. Hon’ble Court further held that in absence

KONDAL RAO KURMYAGARI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gain" cannot arise on the basis of uncertain or indefinite future contingencies or hypothetical and imaginary estimations" ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 18 -: (b) In the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (158 ITR 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court - also held that "it is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that

RAMA RAO GOTTUMUKKALA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

capital gain" cannot arise on the basis of uncertain or indefinite future contingencies or hypothetical and imaginary estimations" ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 18 -: (b) In the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (158 ITR 102), the Hon'ble Supreme Court - also held that "it is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that

SUPER DAIRY FARM.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Expenditure pertaining to feeds and maintenance: Even on merits, Expenditure pertaining to feeds and maintenance has to be treated as revenue expenditure and cannot be capitalized since the said feeds and maintenance are for the daily upkeep

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SUPER DAIRY FARM., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Expenditure pertaining to feeds and maintenance: Even on merits, Expenditure pertaining to feeds and maintenance has to be treated as revenue expenditure and cannot be capitalized since the said feeds and maintenance are for the daily upkeep

SUPER DAIRY FARM.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Expenditure pertaining to feeds and maintenance: Even on merits, Expenditure pertaining to feeds and maintenance has to be treated as revenue expenditure and cannot be capitalized since the said feeds and maintenance are for the daily upkeep