SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

capital gains arising from the sale of plots out of the same land in its return of income for the relevant assessment year by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

capital gains arising from the sale of plots out of the same land in its return of income for the relevant assessment year by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

capital gains arising from the sale of plots out of the same land in its return of income for the relevant assessment year by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land

K GOPAL RAJ, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CEN.CIRCLE-1(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

b) The capital gain was originally assessed in A.Y.2008-09, it is only at the instance of CIT(A) the assessment for A.Y.2009-10 was re-opened by the Assessing Officer. (c) The CIT(A) while deciding the appeal for A.Y.2008- 09 is not competent to give direction to consider the capital gain for A.Y.2009-10. (d) The reasons recorded by Assessing Officer

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. K GOPAL RAJ, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

b) The capital gain was originally assessed in A.Y.2008-09, it is only at the instance of CIT(A) the assessment for A.Y.2009-10 was re-opened by the Assessing Officer. (c) The CIT(A) while deciding the appeal for A.Y.2008- 09 is not competent to give direction to consider the capital gain for A.Y.2009-10. (d) The reasons recorded by Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY NAGARAJU, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

b) The capital gain was originally assessed in A.Y.2008-09, it is only at the instance of CIT(A) the assessment for A.Y.2009-10 was re-opened by the Assessing Officer. (c) The CIT(A) while deciding the appeal for A.Y.2008- 09 is not competent to give direction to consider the capital gain for A.Y.2009-10. (d) The reasons recorded by Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY KISHORE, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

b) The capital gain was originally assessed in A.Y.2008-09, it is only at the instance of CIT(A) the assessment for A.Y.2009-10 was re-opened by the Assessing Officer. (c) The CIT(A) while deciding the appeal for A.Y.2008- 09 is not competent to give direction to consider the capital gain for A.Y.2009-10. (d) The reasons recorded by Assessing Officer

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

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

153B are not applicable. As per sub-section (3) of section 149, the assessment under section 148 on the ‘representative-assessee’ shall not be made after expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case before us, the relevant assessment years are the A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09 wherein notice

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

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

153B are not applicable. As per sub-section (3) of section 149, the assessment under section 148 on the ‘representative-assessee’ shall not be made after expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case before us, the relevant assessment years are the A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09 wherein notice

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTL.TXN)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE (P) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed as withdrawn”

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

153B are not applicable. As per sub-section (3) of section 149, the assessment under section 148 on the ‘representative-assessee’ shall not be made after expiry of a period of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the case before us, the relevant assessment years are the A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09 wherein notice

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

capital gains arising from the sale of plots out of the same land in its return of income for the relevant assessment year by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee's land

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)

1) on 31.03.2023, determining total income at Rs.4,11,26,293/-. 4. The assessee has filed objections against draft assessment order before DRP on 28.04.2023 and challenged proposed additions made by the Ld.AO towards computation of long-term capital gains and additions towards cash consideration u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C

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)

1) on 31.03.2023, determining total income at Rs.4,11,26,293/-. 4. The assessee has filed objections against draft assessment order before DRP on 28.04.2023 and challenged proposed additions made by the Ld.AO towards computation of long-term capital gains and additions towards cash consideration u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The DRP, vide directions issued u/s 144C

VIJAYARAGHAVAN LAKSHMI,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu

B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu PAN : AABPL7182P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A. Srinivas

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

153B of the Act thereby an addition of Long Term Capital Gain for transfer of land under the development agreement was made to the tune of Rs.82,84,130/-. A similar addition was made by the Ld. AO for the A.Y. 2017- 18 along with addition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery of ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 5 Rs.25

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

153B of the Act thereby an addition of Long Term Capital Gain for transfer of land under the development agreement was made to the tune of Rs.82,84,130/-. A similar addition was made by the Ld. AO for the A.Y. 2017- 18 along with addition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery of ITA Nos.120 & 121/Hyd/2021 5 Rs.25

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri

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

B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.158 to 163/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri Pawan Kumar Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadigari, USA (International Taxation)2 PAN:CHFPP1987D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Adv. Mohd.Afzal Revenue by: Shri