ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

Section 2(14) of the Act, and liable to tax, and therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition towards the assessee's share of sale consideration of Rs.7,81,75,000/-, as income arising from capital gain from transfer of property and passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1

ABBAS ALI AKHIL,USA vs. ACIT-INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

Section 2(14) of the Act, and liable to tax, and therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition towards the assessee's share of sale consideration of Rs.7,81,75,000/-, as income arising from capital gain from transfer of property and passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1

MIR IBRAHIM ALI,USA vs. ACIT, INT-TAX-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

Section 2(14) of the Act, and liable to tax, and therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition towards the assessee's share of sale consideration of Rs.7,81,75,000/-, as income arising from capital gain from transfer of property and passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts of the case in\ngranting exemption u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether\nthe CIT(Appeals) is justified in granting exemption u/s.54F of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Capital Gains. (9) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has erred in not giving the indexation benefits provided for sale of immoveable property u/s 48 of the Income tax Act, 1961. (10) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has charged interest under section 234B and 234C despite the TDS Amount being sufficient to cover the entire

SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

sections 50C, 50CA.and 50D.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee being an NRI has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2016 - 17 declaring an income of Rs.18,26,340/- towards income from house property and towards income from short term and long term capital gains and the case was processed. Thereafter, information was received

NAVEEN KUMAR MUSINIPALLY,USA vs. ADIT (INT-TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

capital gains tax for AY 2016-2017 was not leviable. The Tribunal also ruled that the challenge to the AO's jurisdiction was not sustainable as the assessee had participated in the proceedings without objection.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "153C", "144C(3)", "127", "2(47)", "2(47)(v)", "53A", "234A", "132", "142(1

ASRA AHMED ,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

capital gains derived from sale of property by adopting SRO value and also made additions towards cash consideration over and above the sale consideration as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, and passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1

SYED AHMED ZEESHANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

capital gains derived from sale of property by adopting SRO value and also made additions towards cash consideration over and above the sale consideration as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, and passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1

HARIPRIYA TEKUPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TXN - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer considered the return of income furnished by the assessee dated 07.09.2022 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, in our considered view, then, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment. 20 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd./2024 In the present

GANGARAM REDDY TEKULAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., INT TAXN- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gain. Therefore, once the Assessing Officer considered the return of income furnished by the assessee dated 07.09.2022 in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, in our considered view, then, the Assessing Officer is bound to issue notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment. 20 ITA.Nos.786 & 787/Hyd./2024 In the present

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

144C(5) r.w.s. 260 of the I.T. Act for the A.Y 2008-09. 2. This appeal was earlier decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently vide MA No.15/Hyd/2020, dated 23.3.2021, the Tribunal recalled the entire order for fresh adjudication. Therefore, this is a recalled matter. Page 1 of 35 ITA No 864 of 2017 Rain Cements Ltd Hyderabad

RAJU SURYANARAYANA ALLURI,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(13) of the Act on 14.03.2024 at total income of Rs.42,24,600/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee had merely entered into an agreement with the developer and did not receive any consideration neither monetary nor in kind during

SOMNATH KONDURU,UNITED STATES vs. I.T.O (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital gains, purchase deed and sale deed copies, valuation report and other documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer after considering relevant evidences filed by the assessee, has completed the assessment under section 144C and has 3 ITA.No.179/Hyd./2024 passed draft assessment order under section 144C(1

MADHU KUMAR PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT, ( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

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

144C of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs. 8,09,06,331/-. He proposed addition of Rs. 1,32,01,339/- on account of short-term capital gains, and Rs. 6,77,04,992/- on account of long-term capital gains by way of disallowance of claim of section

MOHSIN HIMMATI,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains. The entire\nsale consideration of Rs.2,31,12,000/- was treated as long-term\ncapital gain by the Ld. AO in the hands of the assessee.\nAccordingly, a draft assessment order under section 144C(1

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERAABAD vs. DEENABABU KONDUBHATLA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us :

144C(3) dated 24.05.2024 for making a fresh assessment by invoking the powers granted u/s.251 of the Act, when the provisions of Sec.251(1) clearly states that the power of the CIT(A) is to set aside an order of assessment passed u/s.144 only, which is not applicable to the present case of the assessee. 3. Any other ground

PAVAN KUMAR REDDY KADIGARI,USA vs. ITO, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the captioned six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gain by observing as under: 6. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,53,000/-being cash deposit in the bank account in absence of any explanation given by the assessee regarding the nature and source of the same. 7. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.66,37,395/-. Page