ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is erroneous both on facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is erroneous both on facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is erroneous both on facts

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is erroneous both on facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is erroneous both on facts

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer is erroneous both on facts

SUBHASH 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

15. Coming back to the case law on the issue of additions made towards Long-Term Capital Gain u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (Supra) had considered an identical issue of addition made towards Long-Term Capital Gain derived from sale of shares and claimed

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

15. Coming back to the case law on the issue of additions made towards Long-Term Capital Gain u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (Supra) had considered an identical issue of addition made towards Long-Term Capital Gain derived from sale of shares and claimed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. LAXMI GARDENS, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

15-01- 2006 and as such the returns of income was not filed from asst year 2006- 07 onwards. Whereas, as per the provisions of section 45(4) of the Act the assessee AOP was under obligation to file the return of income for the previous year 2005-06 relevant to the asst year 2006-07 admitting the Capital Gains

NETMATRIX CROP CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

10. We find on a careful perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 54EC of the Act, the same contemplates that where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, [“being land or building or both”], and the assessee has, at any time, within a period of six months after the date of such transfer

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 and not an yield of income which may be brought to tax. The question whether a certain speculation is an adventure in the nature of trade has to be determined on a consideration of a variety of circumstances, regard being had to the nature of organising the speculation; nurturing the property; disposing it off and also the circumstances leading

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

gain is derived would not disentitle them from the benefit of Section 10(46). 183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v Union of India[147] (hereafter "GNIDA") and CIT v Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority[148] In GNIDA (supra), the High