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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

2 to 4 of the paper book filed by the Revenue. It was also submitted that for the purposes of availing benefit of section 54F of the Act, the property should not be the residential property as mentioned therein and for that purposes, he has drawn our attention to section 54 of the Act. Further, the ld. DR had drawn

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital and revenue expenditure and the excess of expenditure of the earlier year. 6) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that 100% of the Development fee collected represents the income of the appellant. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that as per the Government order, only 15% of the Development Charges

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital and revenue expenditure and the excess of expenditure of the earlier year. 6) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that 100% of the Development fee collected represents the income of the appellant. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that as per the Government order, only 15% of the Development Charges

CANARA SECURITIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Canara Securities Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hydereabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan – Aaacc8283G Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ramkishore Jhawar Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2019 O R D E R

12A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SEBI order no. WFM/PS/09/DNPD/APRIL/2012 dated 10.04.2012) in respect of NSE in the matter of modification of client codes of trades is noteworthy: "I am of the opinion that the number of errors is a strong indicator whether the errors are genuine or not. I note that the. broker enters other fields

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

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

12A of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.03.2016. However, during the assessment proceedings in the light of directions of Tribunal and grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, Assessing Officer had completed the re-assessment interalia by making additions of Rs.2,24,32,226/- towards development charges, Rs.2,62,71,273/- towards Layout Regulation Scheme and Rs.11,54,441/- towards

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

12A) Nothing contained in sub-section (12) shall apply to any enterprise or undertaking which is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger on or after the 1st day of April, 2007. (13) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any Special Economic Zones notified on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with

MARRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

2) All applications, pending before the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on which no order has been passed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA before the date on which this section has come into force, shall be deemed to be an application made under sub- clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A

CMR TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

2) All applications, pending before the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on which no order has been passed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA before the date on which this section has come into force, shall be deemed to be an application made under sub- clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A

CMR TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

2) All applications, pending before the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on which no order has been passed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA before the date on which this section has come into force, shall be deemed to be an application made under sub- clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A