GOLDGREEN LAND HOLDINGS LLP( FORMERLY GOLD GREEN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),SHANKARPALLY MANDAL, MIRZAGUDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

234/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the learned Assessing Officer proposed to tax on the gain of Rs. 5,35,52,434/- arised on sale of agriculture land Situated at Vattinagulapally and Janwada Villages, by enclosing screen shot maps showing the distance of the property from the limits of Municipality as less than the prescribed limit. 3. Assessee submitted

NITIN BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

234/-, out of which the assessee’s share at 50% worked out to Rs.66,91,617/-. The assessee claimed deduction of the entire long term capital gain under section

RAZIULLA SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 153C is to be resorted to. He accordingly submitted that reopening of assessment u/sec.147 and issuance of notice u/sec.148 dated 30.07.2022 are invalid and needs to be quashed as the assessment was completed u/sec.147 instead of sec.153C. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Dinakara Suvarna

FUSION LASTEK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Section. 48. The income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely:— (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

gain of Rs. 106,68,32,843 from the profits of the business instead of considering the net amount of Rs. 63,66,53,406 credited to profit & loss account for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10A of the Act. Computing incorrect amount of interest under section 234D of the Act. ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Capital Gain Account Scheme (“CGAS”). The Ld. AO\ndisallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.54F contending\nthat, the assessee had deposited the amount in CGAS after the due\ndate specified u/s.139(1) of the Act. Finally, the Ld. AO completed\nthe assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 22.12.2019\nconsidering the sales consideration at Rs.67,34,000/-, allowing

JUGENDER REDDY ANANTHULA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

capital gains on the transfer 13 Jugender Reddy Ananthula. of land based on the JDA, dated 07.02.2016, entered into with M/s. Mahanagar Homes Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, he had disclosed an income of Rs. 4,48,69,030/- on which the corresponding tax of Rs. 1,49,22,023/- was claimed to have been paid (as can be gathered from

TATA RAO GALI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT.TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

capital gains and other sources and agriculture income of Rs. 3,49,984/-. The return was processed by the AO-CPC, Bengaluru, and intimation under section 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was sent to the assessee on 02/06/2022 with a demand of Rs. 76,410/-. This demand was raised on account of variance in computation of interest

ADALA BHANU REKHA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

section and issue of notice u/s 148 is valid in law. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that all the information/ particulars/details were already furnished by the Appellant at the time of assessment proceedings itself and in the absence of any fresh/ new information, reopening of the assessment by mere changing the opinion

ACIT, CC-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. LEPL PROJECTS LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gains and excess receipts from contract works, respectively, u/s 68 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order on 31.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee has filed the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition vide pages