ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

capital gain will arise nor any deeming charge under section 56 for the receipt of property / assets / shares etc. can be attributed for improper consideration. 22 ITA.No.1187/Hyd/2018 vii. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that since there is no doubt regarding the date of transfer and the year of taxability, just because the HC Order has been passed on October

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

e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.4,50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.4,50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.4,50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.4,50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.4,50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.4,50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.4,50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made of Rs.4,50,63,347/- towards short term capital gains. 6.a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing ground nos.8 to 8.4 taken before him with regard to the addition of Rs.1,49,255/- as long term capital gain. b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.06.06.2023 invoking proceedings under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), respectively. Facts and the grounds of appeal involved

BIKASH KUMAR KEDIA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 4,78,75,867 / has been credited in the books of account

SUBHASH KUMAR KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 4,78,75,867 / has been credited in the books of account

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

22,920/-. A survey u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted at the business premises of the appellant and other group companies on 15/09/2015. During the course of survey proceedings, it was found that during the financial year 2011-12, the assessee has invested in equity shares of M/s. Turbo Tech and M/s. Sharp Trading Company for Rs.1

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

E R "ित रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14/08/2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Section 143(3) of the Income

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

E-assessment Scheme, 2019, for verifying multi-facet issues, viz. (i). disallowance under section 14A of the Act; (ii). allowability of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR donations; (iii). eligibility of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act w.r.t its power generation units; and (iv). addition under

SUPER DAIRY FARM.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

22 of PB) Sale of Self-bred live stock is a capital receipt and not taxable: Further, Self-Bred livestock do not have any cost of acquisition and hence the amount received on sale of such live stock is treated as capital receipt and hence exempt. If the provisions contained under sections 45 and 48 are scanned there

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SUPER DAIRY FARM., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

22 of PB) Sale of Self-bred live stock is a capital receipt and not taxable: Further, Self-Bred livestock do not have any cost of acquisition and hence the amount received on sale of such live stock is treated as capital receipt and hence exempt. If the provisions contained under sections 45 and 48 are scanned there

SUPER DAIRY FARM.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)., HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

22 of PB) Sale of Self-bred live stock is a capital receipt and not taxable: Further, Self-Bred livestock do not have any cost of acquisition and hence the amount received on sale of such live stock is treated as capital receipt and hence exempt. If the provisions contained under sections 45 and 48 are scanned there