ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal. 2

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6.7 Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee before us. It is the contention of the Ld.AR before us that the assessee is entitled to raise the legal ground as per the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

capital gain scheme bank account\nbefore the date of furnishing of return under section 139(1). In such a scenario, the\nassessee will be allowed exemption qua such amount of deposit as well. Sub-section\n(2

NETMATRIX CROP CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

1) and Section 54EC of the Act, that as the profits/gains arising from the slump sale are held to be capital gains arising from the transfer of a long- term capital asset, therefore, the pre-condition contemplated in Section 54EC of the Act that the capital gain arises from the transfer of long term capital asset [“being land or building

KYORI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kyori Infrastructure Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., Ca, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Samajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Of The Pr. Cit-2, Hyderabad Dated 26.2.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Infrastructure Activity. It Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 30.9.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 27.12.2017 With The Assessed Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. P A G E 1 | 11 Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital asset to stock-in-trade during the preceding financial period. We find it beneficial to reproduce sub-section(2) of Section 45, which reads as follows: “Sub-section(2) of Section 45 - Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains