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 144C(13) of the Act and therefore, there is no merit in the argument taken by the assessee on the additional grounds, and the same needs to be rejected. 15. The CIT-DR further, referring to the reasons given by the AO to make addition towards capital gain

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 144C(13) of the Act and therefore, there is no merit in the argument taken by the assessee on the additional grounds, and the same needs to be rejected. 15. The CIT-DR further, referring to the reasons given by the AO to make addition towards capital gain

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 144C(13) of the Act and therefore, there is no merit in the argument taken by the assessee on the additional grounds, and the same needs to be rejected. 15. The CIT-DR further, referring to the reasons given by the AO to make addition towards capital gain

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

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

Gain of Rs. 8,73,48,776/- need not be added to make the adjustments in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB of the act. 4.2. Ought to have appreciated the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs. CIT2002) 12 Taxmann.com 562 (SC) has clearly stated that the Assessing

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)

15 days’ time for submitting response. The Ld.AO after considering relevant evidences found during the course of search and also taking note of return of income filed by the assessee, recomputed the long term capital gains derived from sale of property by adopting SRO value and also made additions towards cash consideration over and above the sale consideration

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)

15 days’ time for submitting response. The Ld.AO after considering relevant evidences found during the course of search and also taking note of return of income filed by the assessee, recomputed the long term capital gains derived from sale of property by adopting SRO value and also made additions towards cash consideration over and above the sale consideration

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

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

144C(13) of the Act on 30.06.2023 by making addition of Rs.80,00,13,814/- on account of income from capital gain and addition of Rs.83,62,670/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. 4.2 Aggrieved with the final assessment order of Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before

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

15, the assessee filed his return of income on 24/08/2015, admitting the total income at Rs. 1,01,00,000/-. Subsequently, on 29/03/2021, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued for the assessment year 2014-15 and the assessee filed the return of income under section 148 of the Act, admitting total income at Rs.1

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

section 144C(15)(i) as the term “non-resident not being a company” is introduced by the Finance Act 2020 w.e.f 01.04.2020, therefore, the assessment made 17.01.2023 is barred by limitations, therefore, the same is to be held as invalid. 4. The learned Assessing Officer ITO (Int Taxn)-2, being a jurisdictional officer of the assessee has not issued notice

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

section 144C(15)(i) as the term “non-resident not being a company” is introduced by the Finance Act 2020 w.e.f 01.04.2020, therefore, the assessment made 17.01.2023 is barred by limitations, therefore, the same is to be held as invalid. 4. The learned Assessing Officer ITO (Int Taxn)-2, being a jurisdictional officer of the assessee has not issued notice

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

section 144C(15)(i) as the term “non-resident not being a company” is introduced by the Finance Act 2020 w.e.f 01.04.2020, therefore, the assessment made 17.01.2023 is barred by limitations, therefore, the same is to be held as invalid. 4. The learned Assessing Officer ITO (Int Taxn)-2, being a jurisdictional officer of the assessee has not issued notice

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

section 144C(15)(i) as the term “non-resident not being a company” is introduced by the Finance Act 2020 w.e.f 01.04.2020, therefore, the assessment made 17.01.2023 is barred by limitations, therefore, the same is to be held as invalid. 4. The learned Assessing Officer ITO (Int Taxn)-2, being a jurisdictional officer of the assessee has not issued notice

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

section 144C(15)(i) as the term “non-resident not being a company” is introduced by the Finance Act 2020 w.e.f 01.04.2020, therefore, the assessment made 17.01.2023 is barred by limitations, therefore, the same is to be held as invalid. 4. The learned Assessing Officer ITO (Int Taxn)-2, being a jurisdictional officer of the assessee has not issued notice

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

section 144C(15)(i) as the term “non-resident not being a company” is introduced by the Finance Act 2020 w.e.f 01.04.2020, therefore, the assessment made 17.01.2023 is barred by limitations, therefore, the same is to be held as invalid. 4. The learned Assessing Officer ITO (Int Taxn)-2, being a jurisdictional officer of the assessee has not issued notice

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

Bench: Us :

Capital Gains (for short “STCG”) on the transfer of the same at Rs.2,15,25,000/-. The A.O., vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

15. The appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned supra and all consequential efforts relief thereto. 16. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend, rescind, modify or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal contained herein or add any further grounds as may be discussed necessary either

PRAKASH LAL POTLURI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT TAXN)-2,HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Prakash Lal Potluri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad. Pan : Gnkpp1085B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024

15) of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee opted to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore, on 31.03.2023, requesting consideration of his pleas regarding the addition made on long-term capital gains of Rs.1,20,000/-. However, after hearing the objections raised by the assessee, the DRP issued directions

SHAMSU UL ZOHA JERMAIN,COULSDON, UNITED KINGDOM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(1) of the Act on 27.02.2023 making an addition of Rs.69,14,289/- on account of income on sale of land under the head “Capital Gains.” The assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP, which were rejected. Subsequently, the Ld. AO ITA No.1125/Hyd/2024 6 passed the final assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s