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

Capital Gains. (9) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has erred in not giving the indexation benefits provided for sale of immoveable property u/s 48 of the Income tax Act, 1961. (10) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has charged interest under section 234B and 234C despite the TDS Amount being sufficient to cover the entire

ROCKSALT INTERACTIVE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under subsection (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed

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

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

ASHOK KUMAR KOLLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.876/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Ashok Kumar Kolla Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan:Afwpk8481L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024 आदेश/Order

154 for rectification of mistake on computation of indexed cost of acquisition and there is no idea what happened to the rectification proceedings. Therefore, when rectification proceedings are pending, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the Page 5 of 11 ITA No 876 of 2024 Ashok Kumar Kolla assessment u/s 147 of the Act, on the very same issue. The learned

ITO, WARD-5(3),, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI BRIJ GOPAL P SHAH, HUF,, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gains on transfer of property by virtue of deemed transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued dt.23.11.2009 calling for assessees’ objections. After receiving the response from the assessee, AO had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A against the assessee HUF for the aforesaid years. 5.1. Thereafter, assessee HUF filed

ITO, WARD-5(3),, HYDERABAD vs. SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR D SHAH, HUF, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gains on transfer of property by virtue of deemed transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued dt.23.11.2009 calling for assessees’ objections. After receiving the response from the assessee, AO had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A against the assessee HUF for the aforesaid years. 5.1. Thereafter, assessee HUF filed

LAKSHMI SHANKAR GUMUDAVELLI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda

154 for rectification of the order cannot be applied to debatable issues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram vs Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process

LAKSHMI SHANKAR GUMUDAVELLI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda

154 for rectification of the order cannot be applied to debatable issues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram vs Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process

V SIVA KOTA REDDY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

u/s 143(2) to the assessee, against which, the AR of the assessee furnished the information called for. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee admitted Short term Capital Gain at Rs. 6,00,250/-, being owner of 50% share in sale consideration of at Rs. V. Siva Kota Reddy & V. Sumathi

V. SUMATHI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

u/s 143(2) to the assessee, against which, the AR of the assessee furnished the information called for. 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee admitted Short term Capital Gain at Rs. 6,00,250/-, being owner of 50% share in sale consideration of at Rs. V. Siva Kota Reddy & V. Sumathi

CHANDANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain even though the same was not allowable u/s 72 of the Act. Therefore, he issued notice u/s 154 of the Act for rectification

GOVINDA RAJULU DHONDU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2019-20

capital gain in the return of income filed before the Authorities concerned in USA and paid tax equivalent to Indian Rupee of Rs.58,69,594/. Copy of the return of income filed in USA was also submitted. The assessee while filing the return of income in ITR-2 claimed tax credit for 58,69,594/- as per the computation statement

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gains and income from other sources. In the instant case considering the activity of the assessee the other income which has to be taxed at normal rates has to be computed under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' as the activity of the assessee is akin to that of commercial activity having the characteristics of business

KRISHNA MOHAN SAHU.,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXATION-1., HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devidr. Krishna Mohan Sahu Vs Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International Taxation)-1 Pan: Ajvps4399A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification form. It was also submitted that the assessee made a grievance petition with the Income Tax Ombudsman on 25.08.2015 stating the facts of his case but the same has also been rejected vide letter dated 18.11.2015 mentioning that the assessee’s case is not fit case for an order u/s 154. It was submitted that in these circumstances

JUGENDER REDDY ANANTHULA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

rectification order passed by the Assessing officer dt.17-08-2021 is bad-in-law and the same is liable to be quashed. 2. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ modify the grounds of appeal as may be required for proper adjudication of the case. Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under: “The Finance

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

capital gains and 3 times under the head income from other sources resulting the total income of the assessee was assessed at 5 times of the salary income. This fact is not disputed by the Department that the amount of salary income repeated under various heads either due to some technical glitches or bug in the system or mistake

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

capital gains and 3 times under the head income from other sources resulting the total income of the assessee was assessed at 5 times of the salary income. This fact is not disputed by the Department that the amount of salary income repeated under various heads either due to some technical glitches or bug in the system or mistake

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

capital gains and 3 times under the head income from other sources resulting the total income of the assessee was assessed at 5 times of the salary income. This fact is not disputed by the Department that the amount of salary income repeated under various heads either due to some technical glitches or bug in the system or mistake

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD vs. VISION VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains were revised at Rs.1,29,82,292/- and while doing so, assessing officer made addition of Rs.1,12,68,403/- being the difference between From 26AS and P&L Account of the assessee company. Page 2 of 6 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who granted part relief