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

d) The ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax the sale consideration on sale of built up area of 26,148 sq.ft as long term capital gains instead of splitting the capital gains as long term capital gains for land and short term capital gains for transfer of commercial space. e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

d) The ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax the sale consideration on sale of built up area of 26,148 sq.ft as long term capital gains instead of splitting the capital gains as long term capital gains for land and short term capital gains for transfer of commercial space. e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

d) The ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax the sale consideration on sale of built up area of 26,148 sq.ft as long term capital gains instead of splitting the capital gains as long term capital gains for land and short term capital gains for transfer of commercial space. e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

d) The ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax the sale consideration on sale of built up area of 26,148 sq.ft as long term capital gains instead of splitting the capital gains as long term capital gains for land and short term capital gains for transfer of commercial space. e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

d) The ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax the sale consideration on sale of built up area of 26,148 sq.ft as long term capital gains instead of splitting the capital gains as long term capital gains for land and short term capital gains for transfer of commercial space. e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

d) The ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax the sale consideration on sale of built up area of 26,148 sq.ft as long term capital gains instead of splitting the capital gains as long term capital gains for land and short term capital gains for transfer of commercial space. e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

d) The ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax the sale consideration on sale of built up area of 26,148 sq.ft as long term capital gains instead of splitting the capital gains as long term capital gains for land and short term capital gains for transfer of commercial space. e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

Bench: Us:

d), there was a provision for raising a claim for 5 Netmatrix Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. deduction under Section 54EC against the full value of consideration received from the slump sale. 4. However, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee company did not find favour with the Pr. CIT, who was of the view that, as in the case of slump

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

d)of sub- section (1) of 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

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

d) Though the assessee received his share of revenue receipts through capital gains account in the syndicate bank, the amounts with drawn from this account were not used by the assessee for construction or purchase of new property. The assessee claimed that he has only one property which was given into JDA and hence he is eligible for the exemption

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

1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal in part. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not separately adjudicating grounds of appeal of Assessee of AY 2015-16 and applying the decision taken for the AY 2014-15 without verifying

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

1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal in part. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not separately adjudicating grounds of appeal of Assessee of AY 2015-16 and applying the decision taken for the AY 2014-15 without verifying

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M : The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt. 23.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the ld.CIT(A)”) invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) relating

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

d) TRF Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 190 Taxman 391 (SC) In this case, the issue was regarding whether after 01.04.1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debt, in fact has become irrecoverable. In the present case, the write-off is under scheme of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. And not because of actual. This

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

d) TRF Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 190 Taxman 391 (SC) In this case, the issue was regarding whether after 01.04.1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debt, in fact has become irrecoverable. In the present case, the write-off is under scheme of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. And not because of actual. This

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

d) TRF Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 190 Taxman 391 (SC) In this case, the issue was regarding whether after 01.04.1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debt, in fact has become irrecoverable. In the present case, the write-off is under scheme of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. And not because of actual. This

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

d) TRF Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 190 Taxman 391 (SC) In this case, the issue was regarding whether after 01.04.1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debt, in fact has become irrecoverable. In the present case, the write-off is under scheme of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. And not because of actual. This

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

d) TRF Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 190 Taxman 391 (SC) In this case, the issue was regarding whether after 01.04.1989, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that debt, in fact has become irrecoverable. In the present case, the write-off is under scheme of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. And not because of actual. This