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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

KONDAL RAO KURMYAGARI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : These are assessee’s appeals against separate but similar orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, dated 29-07-2016 on the issue of bringing to tax the capital gains in the impugned year. 2. Assessees herein are individuals carrying on the business of construction activities and real estate agency. They

RAMA RAO GOTTUMUKKALA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : These are assessee’s appeals against separate but similar orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, dated 29-07-2016 on the issue of bringing to tax the capital gains in the impugned year. 2. Assessees herein are individuals carrying on the business of construction activities and real estate agency. They

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.

e learned CIT(A) remains unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Department. For this reason also, short term capital gain computed by the AO cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 14. So far as the ground raised by the department challenging the view

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.

e learned CIT(A) remains unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Department. For this reason also, short term capital gain computed by the AO cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 14. So far as the ground raised by the department challenging the view

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.

e learned CIT(A) remains unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Department. For this reason also, short term capital gain computed by the AO cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 14. So far as the ground raised by the department challenging the view

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.

e learned CIT(A) remains unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Department. For this reason also, short term capital gain computed by the AO cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). 14. So far as the ground raised by the department challenging the view