KAVYA 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

11 there was no effective transfer of property for AY 2010-11and further, assessed long term capital gain for the assessment year 2016-17, but while adjudicating the appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, it was held that the capital gain was rightfully brought to tax in the year 2010-11 and the same has been accepted by the Revenue

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

11 there was no effective transfer of property for AY 2010-11and further, assessed long term capital gain for the assessment year 2016-17, but while adjudicating the appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, it was held that the capital gain was rightfully brought to tax in the year 2010-11 and the same has been accepted by the Revenue

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

11 there was no effective transfer of property for AY 2010-11and further, assessed long term capital gain for the assessment year 2016-17, but while adjudicating the appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, it was held that the capital gain was rightfully brought to tax in the year 2010-11 and the same has been accepted by the Revenue

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

11 there was no effective transfer of property for AY 2010-11and further, assessed long term capital gain for the assessment year 2016-17, but while adjudicating the appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, it was held that the capital gain was rightfully brought to tax in the year 2010-11 and the same has been accepted by the Revenue

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

11 there was no effective transfer of property for AY 2010-11and further, assessed long term capital gain for the assessment year 2016-17, but while adjudicating the appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, it was held that the capital gain was rightfully brought to tax in the year 2010-11 and the same has been accepted by the Revenue

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

11 there was no effective transfer of property for AY 2010-11and further, assessed long term capital gain for the assessment year 2016-17, but while adjudicating the appeal for A.Y. 2016-17, it was held that the capital gain was rightfully brought to tax in the year 2010-11 and the same has been accepted by the Revenue

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

5% of the total payment, then, the turnover\nlimit for getting accounts audited is Rs.10 crore and since\nthe turnover of the assessee is less than Rs.10 crore, the\nassessee is not required to file audit report under section\n44AB of the Act. Therefore, opined that, the assessee need\nto file his return of income on or before 31.07.2022. Since

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

Sections 11, 11(4) and 11B of SEBI Act, hereby revoke the interim order dated March 29, 2016 and confirmatory orders dated June 15, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 21, 2016, October 27, 2016 and July 13, 2017 qua aforesaid 244 entities (paragraph 5 above) with immediate effect. Page 30 of 33 ITA 707 & 405 of 2020 Subhash Kumar Kedia

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

Sections 11, 11(4) and 11B of SEBI Act, hereby revoke the interim order dated March 29, 2016 and confirmatory orders dated June 15, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 21, 2016, October 27, 2016 and July 13, 2017 qua aforesaid 244 entities (paragraph 5 above) with immediate effect. Page 30 of 33 ITA 707 & 405 of 2020 Subhash Kumar Kedia

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

Bench: Us:

11. On the other hand, we find that Section 50B(1) of the Act contemplates that any profits/gains arising from the slump sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long term capital asset 14 Netmatrix Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. and shall be deemed to be the income

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

section 115WB; [(42B) "short-term capital gain" means capital gain arising from the transfer of a short-term capital asset ;] 10 Agarwal Industries Pvt.Ltd. 13. From the conjoint reading of the short term capital asset, long term capital asset, short term capital gain and long term capital gain, it is clear that the long term capital gain will arise

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

Section 54F of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence he admitted the income received from the project as capital gains and claimed exemption u/s 54F. For all the above reasons discussed above the request of the assessee vide his letter dated 11.12 2017 received in this office on 15.12.2017 to consider the receipts from the project as capital gains

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11…. Even otherwise, on merits of the issue which is raised in Ground No.2, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions which are relied upon by the ld Counsel for the assessee. Sub-section 5 of Section 80IA provides that the deduction should be calculated in respect of an eligible unit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11…. Even otherwise, on merits of the issue which is raised in Ground No.2, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions which are relied upon by the ld Counsel for the assessee. Sub-section 5 of Section 80IA provides that the deduction should be calculated in respect of an eligible unit

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.319/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.2/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.319/Hyd/2022) A.Y 2015-16 Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

5 of 12 ITA No 319 of 2022 and SA No.2 of 2024 Ishoo Narang Officer towards deemed dividend. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of provisions of section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards Long- Term/Short Term Capital Gain

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

11 to 16 of the impugned order which is to the following effect: The assessee was given opportunity of being heard due to change in incumbent. The explanations submitted by the assessee are also considered. The material facts as available on record have also been considered. The assessee. entered into an agreement with M/s. Srija Constructions

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 as bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted

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 as bogus ones in absence of any supportive evidence in their support; whatsoever. The impugned addition(s) qua both aspects (supra) are directed to be deleted. This former appeal ITA No.456/Hyd/2020 is accepted. 4. Next comes both assessee’s appeals ITA Nos.457 & 458/Hyd/2020 seeking to reverse the lower authorities’ identical action making the alleged un-explained un accounted