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)

8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee is a non-resident individual for the A.Y 2017-18 and is an eligible assessee as per section 144C(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 144C of the Act, the assessment

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)

8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee is a non-resident individual for the A.Y 2017-18 and is an eligible assessee as per section 144C(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 144C of the Act, the assessment

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)

8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee is a non-resident individual for the A.Y 2017-18 and is an eligible assessee as per section 144C(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 144C of the Act, the assessment

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

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 03/02/2022 and assessed the total income at Rs. 104,99,80,729/-. While passing the assessment order, the Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 270A of the Act for under- reporting of income. Feeling aggrieved by the directions of the Ld. DRP / Assessment Order, the assessee preferred the present appeal

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

8) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has erred in computing the tax payable under the head Income from 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

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

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

144C(3) of the Act, dated 29.09.2024, i.e., on the matter\nhaving been set aside by the Tribunal, after necessary deliberations\nand perusal of the documents, observed that except for one\nproperty, i.e., the property situated at Ghatkeswar, Uppal,\nMedipally, Hyderabad, the remaining eight properties (out of nine\nproperties) were found to be commercial properties. However, the\nA.O. observed that

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

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 and additions towards cash consideration u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined

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 and additions towards cash consideration u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 26/12/2023, rejected the objections filed by the assessee and upheld the additions proposed by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld.AO passed final assessment order u/s 153C r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, on 19/01/2024 and determined

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

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. The DRP disposed of the said objection filed by the assessee vide it’s Direction issued under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 30.10.2023 and rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the objections filed by the assessee on 06.04.2023 is beyond the “due date” prescribed under the Act i.e., 05.04.2023 and not maintainable

RAMESH REDDY GONGALLA,UNITED STATES vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Assessee is an individual. He is nonresident of India and resident of America. He possessed 500 sq.yds of site and he entered into development agreement cum General Power of Attorney on 31/05/2016 along with 45 others in favour of M/s Preston Developers LLP, under which

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

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

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

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

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