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

Gain. Based on the said information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for Page 19 of 33 ITA 707 & 405 of 2020 Subhash Kumar Kedia & Other reopening of the assessment and observed that there is an escapement of income from tax on account of under assessment of Long-Term Capital

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that there is enough material which come to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to completion of the assessment which suggests escapement of income on account of under assessment of Long-Term Capital Gain

SRINIVAS SHAH RADRARAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

Gain. Based on the said information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment and observed that there is an escapement of income from tax on account of under assessment of Long-Term Capital

SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

reopening the assessment U/s 147, and capital gain of Rs. 2,56,90,030 was wrongly taxed in AN 201647. 4. The Id A.O/DRP

NAVEEN KUMAR MUSINIPALLY,USA vs. ADIT (INT-TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

reopen of the assessment. Subsequently, notices u/sec.142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued to the assessee and assessee also submitted information from time to time. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information available with the Department, observed that, during the financial year 2015-2016, relevant to the assessment year 2016-2017, the assessee

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1289/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Granules India Limited Vs. Dcit- Circle -2(1) 15Th Floor, Granules Tower Signature Tower, Botanical Garden Road Sy. No. 6(P) Of Kondaput Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084 Sy. No. 37 Of Kothaguda Telangana Opp. Botanical Gardens Serilingampalluy, R.R. District Pan: Aaacg7369K Hyderabad-500084, Telangana (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

gain on capital account shall not be disallowed. In response, the assessee vide letter 7 Granules India Limited dated 04.12.2017 raised objections for reopening of the assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gain by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission of the assessee by the ld.AR that once the assessee had disclosed all the information to the Assessing Officer, then it is for the Assessing Officer to use his power under the Act for making the additions in the hands of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the additions

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gain by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission of the assessee by the ld.AR that once the assessee had disclosed all the information to the Assessing Officer, then it is for the Assessing Officer to use his power under the Act for making the additions in the hands of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the additions

SOMNATH KONDURU,UNITED STATES vs. I.T.O (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

gain derived on the same is not offered to tax. From the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment and the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, we find that the very basis for reopening of the assessment is that, the assessee has not filed any return of income disclosing the capital

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

reopening of the assessment. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and quash the re-assessment and passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 10. The assessee has challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards the computation of Long-Term Capital Gain

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

reopened u/s 147 of the Act, for the reasons recorded, as per which, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of excess deduction allowed u/s 54F of the Act against long term capital gains

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

Capital Gains” (LTCG) or any part\nthereof during the subject year i.e AY 2022-23, then, as a fall out\nthereof, the offering of the LTCG on the subject property for tax on\nthe subsequent transfer of the new residential house during the\nlock-in period i.e AY 2024-25 to the said extent will be rendered as\nredundant

(LATE) AUDINARAYANA REDDY ALTHURI REP.BY L/R MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reopened. The assessee had also\nchallenged addition made by the Assessing Officer towards\nconsideration received on sale of shares as unexplained\ncash credits under section 68 of the Act in light of various\nevidences and submitted that, the Assessing Officer is erred\nin making addition only on the basis of statement of third\nparty without any concrete evidence to allege

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reopening on 27.11.2013, however the assessee only filed objections on 26.03.2014 vide its letter dated 25.03.2014. The assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed on 29.03.2014 declaring income of Rs. 56,12,97,159/- including the addition on account of Short. Term Capital gain

TAHERA ABIDA GHORI ,HYDERABAD vs. DUPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gains at Rs.4,39,53,353/- by recording the following: Page 5 of 19 ITA-IT No 777 of 2020 7. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

KRISHNA MURTHY ELLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.585/Hyd/2023 & Sa No.10/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.585/Hyd/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacpe6389G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

reopening of the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction is invalid and liable to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents: 1) Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of JCIT vs George Williamson (Assam) Ltd 2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Manzil Dinesh Kumar 3) ITAT Hyderabad

GOKUL PRASAD PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain” claimed deduction of the cost of acquisition (indexed) and the cost of improvement (indexed) both in A.Y. 2004– 3 Gokul Prasad Patel, Hyderabad. 05 and A.Y. 2012–13, which was not allowable, thus, holding a bona fide belief that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the subject year had escaped assessment, reopened

BASETTI SADGUNA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1546/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Basetti Sadguna The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. Ward-1, Vs. Telangana. Sanga Reddy–502001. Telangana. Pan Ajipb5254C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

gain on account of 50% share of the consideration received by each of them, the Assessing Officer could have assessed the income in the hand of the assessee. It appears that the Department, instead of assessing the income in the hand of the right persons, has taken up the case of the assessee for reopening and assessing the capital

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

Gains derived from sale of shares of Stampede Capital Ltd and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, for the assessment year under consideration and further, subsequent assessment years. The A.O. reopened