INDUKURI SYAM PRASAD REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

capital gains. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the issue was originally examined by the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer opined that it is not allowable and when the Addl. Commissioner u/s 144A directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim, after examining the facts and circumstances and also material on record, the learned CIT is totally

INDUKURI SUNDARI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of both assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

capital gains. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the issue was originally examined by the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer opined that it is not allowable and when the Addl. Commissioner u/s 144A directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim, after examining the facts and circumstances and also material on record, the learned CIT is totally

AGRO TECH FOODS LIMITED., SEC'BAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

gains in the case of the assessee and not in the case of the comparables while computing their PLI. He therefore, held the assessment order to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee also argued before the CIT that one of the comparable i.e. Tasty Bites Limited should

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1330/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Constructions The Income Tax Officer, Nirmal. Telangana. Ward-1, Vs. Pin – 504 106. Nirmal – 504 106. Pan Aapfk1280K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri D Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar,Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

gain from acquisition of smartplay startup by aricent, which in our opinion was not identified for examination under the limited scrutiny. The sole basis of the assessment is completely based on the AO's presumption that there is a artificial arrangement to generate capital loss whereas the case was selected for the examination of whether refund claim is justified & whether

VIJAYA LAKSHMI MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144A as well as the assessing authority went by the registered valuer’s report only. We wish to clarify that although the legislature has introduced section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso for adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement itself as the fair market value provided the same had been paid by the approved method only

NAVEEN MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144A as well as the assessing authority went by the registered valuer’s report only. We wish to clarify that although the legislature has introduced section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso for adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement itself as the fair market value provided the same had been paid by the approved method only

RAMESH MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144A as well as the assessing authority went by the registered valuer’s report only. We wish to clarify that although the legislature has introduced section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso for adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement itself as the fair market value provided the same had been paid by the approved method only

MURALI KRISHNA MITTAPALLI,KHAMMAM vs. ITO WARD-1 KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144A as well as the assessing authority went by the registered valuer’s report only. We wish to clarify that although the legislature has introduced section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso for adopting the sale consideration as on the date of agreement itself as the fair market value provided the same had been paid by the approved method only

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

Bench: Us.

capital gain disclosed by the assessee was examined twice by the Assessing Officer; and (ii) that the purported revision of the assessment order based on an audit objection was not permitted under law; but neither of the same found favor with the revisional authority. Apart from that, it was the assessee's claim that as he 6 Himsagar Krishna

JYOTHI BHANOTH ,KHAMMAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2014-15 Jyothi Bhanoth, Vs. Acit, Khammam. Circle-1, Pan: Anopb 4718 R Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

144A of the Act vide his order dated 29/12/2018. The value of the property was so arrived by the Revenue considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee and keeping in view of its inherent disadvantages of the property. Therefore, even if section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is invoked, the sale consideration cannot