SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 69A of the Act could not have been invoked in as much as the Appellant has recorded the sale of shares and has produced all the evidence in this regard. 6. The finding of the Ld. NFAC that the Appellant did not explain how the shares of Brilliant Securities were converted to Stampede Capital Ltd. and how the appellant

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 69A of the Act could not have been invoked in as much as the Appellant has recorded the sale of shares and has produced all the evidence in this regard. 6. The finding of the Ld. NFAC that the Appellant did not explain how the shares of Brilliant Securities were converted to Stampede Capital Ltd. and how the appellant

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 69A of the Act could not have been invoked in as much as the Appellant has recorded the sale of shares and has produced all the evidence in this regard. 6. The finding of the Ld. NFAC that the Appellant did not explain how the shares of Brilliant Securities were converted to Stampede Capital Ltd. and how the appellant

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 69A of the Act could not have been invoked in as much as the Appellant has recorded the sale of shares and has produced all the evidence in this regard. 6. The finding of the Ld. NFAC that the Appellant did not explain how the shares of Brilliant Securities were converted to Stampede Capital Ltd. and how the appellant

RAJASEKHAR NAIDU GALLA,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains, has set aside the assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B

NEMI CHAND,GUDUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain of Rs. 24,59,649/- by him as exempt under section 54 of the Act. 4. The assessee had further submitted before the AO that M/s. Mishri Developers (supra), comprised of five partners, viz., (a) Sri Rikab Chand; (b) Sri Ugamraj Nahar; (c) Sri Ashok Kumar Kothari; (d) Sri R. Nemichand (i.e., the assessee); and (e) Sri Prakash

PARVATHANENI PRAVEEN,KHAMMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

section\n2(14) it is mentioned that non-agricultural land is not a\ncapital asset. Therefore, non-agricultural land in India is\nnothing but a capital asset.\nThe facts of the present case are distinguishable with the\ncase law relied upon by the assessee.\nThe Honble High Court of Gujrat in the case of Rasiklal\nChimanlal Nagri

ALLRUI SRINIVAS RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1923/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Allrui Srinivas Raju, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-12(1), Pan: Ahepr6968H Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri K C Devdas, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 12/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Allrui Srinivas Raju, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 17/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. Allrui Srinivas Raju Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Rounds Of Appeal:

capital gain in the hands of the assessee on account of the said JDA. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B

THULASI CHAMARTHY,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

capital gain and after disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction, viz., (i) under section 54EC: Rs.50 lakhs; and (ii) under section 54F: Rs.61,03,380/-, vide his order passed under section 147 5 Tulasi Chamarthy vs. ITO r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

TAURUS VALUE STEEL & PIPES PVT LTD,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 144B which is infructuous and void-ab-initio as the appellant was not given further opportunity of being heard before passing an order and as such the order passed is against the principles of Natural Justice. iii.The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department has erred in assessing Long Term Capital Gain

OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

144B of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961, in terms of provisions of Section 263 of the Act, on the\nground that, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is\nerroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.\nThe learned PCIT set aside the assessment order on three counts.\nThe first and foremost issue considered

SUNITHA MALU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 22/04/2021, but he had till date not modified the determination of the long term capital gains

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PRAGNAPUR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the grounds Nos. 1 to 12 are partly allowed

Bench: Us:

capital gain (LTCG) on the transfer of the subject property at Rs. 19,54,22,998/-. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w section 144B

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 144B of the Act, dated 24-03-2022 in the absence of details of the requisite details, viz. cost of acquisition and improvement pertaining to the subject property, held the entire amount of sale consideration of the subject properties aggregating to Rs.41.30 lacs (supra) as Short-Term Capital Gain

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 144B of the Act, dated 24-03-2022 in the absence of details of the requisite details, viz. cost of acquisition and improvement pertaining to the subject property, held the entire amount of sale consideration of the subject properties aggregating to Rs.41.30 lacs (supra) as Short-Term Capital Gain

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section 144B of the Act, dated 24-03-2022 in the absence of details of the requisite details, viz. cost of acquisition and improvement pertaining to the subject property, held the entire amount of sale consideration of the subject properties aggregating to Rs.41.30 lacs (supra) as Short-Term Capital Gain

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988', which thereafter is to be withdrawn and utilized as per the terms contemplated in the said statutory provision. We are of the considered view that Section 54F, neither provides as a pre-condition the requirement of filing of the 'return of income' by the assessee within the stipulated time period, nor places any embargo

RAGHU SATYANARYANA KOLLU,KODAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988', which thereafter is to be withdrawn and utilized as per the terms contemplated in the said statutory provision. We are of the considered view that Section 54F, neither provides as a pre-condition the requirement of filing of the 'return of income' by the assessee within the stipulated time period, nor places any embargo