PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

capital gain addition of Rs.1,52,25,705/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) of the I.T. Act. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”. ITA No.126/Hyd/2019 – A.Y 2013-14 (Revenue) A.Y 2013-14 31. The ground raised

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. NANCY DIVAKER HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

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

234A and 2348. The subject matter of the above addition was, as the execution of development agreement was done in the above assessment year, the same needs to be taxed in the above assessment year. However, on representation and submission of facts and circumstances regarding non commencement of the project due to various difficulties and disputes and the appellants further

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. NANCY DIVAKER HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

234A and 2348. The subject matter of the above addition was, as the execution of development agreement was done in the above assessment year, the same needs to be taxed in the above assessment year. However, on representation and submission of facts and circumstances regarding non commencement of the project due to various difficulties and disputes and the appellants further

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

VIGILANCE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LTD., SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (OSD), RANGE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

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

234A - Rs. 3,66,776 (+) Interest u/s. 234B - Rs. 16,50,492 (+) Interest u/s. 234C - Rs. 2,31,526 ----------------------- Tax payable - Rs. 68,33,490 ----------------------- However, he has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). 3. In the proceedings, assessee submitted that they were advised wrongly by their counsel that Long Term Capital Gain was also exempt under the provisions

SGB BRANDSAFWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

capital gains on the sale of fixed assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessee is also directed to provide all the details to reconcile the profit on the sale of fixed assets and the working of WDV fixed assets as per the provisions of the Act without seeking any adjournment. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee

KP ADVISORY SERVICES LLP,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1013/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Kp Advisory Services Llp, The Acit, Hyderabad. Pin–500 016. Vs. Central Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aarfk7349F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

Capital Gains of Rs.447,62,58,609 was considered in the Computation of Total Income Statement as per the assessment order as against Rs. 446,87,55,610 finalized in 3 ITA.No.1013/Hyd./2025 the Assessment order under section 143(3), thereby subjecting a wrong and arbitrary income to tax without providing any basis for doing so. 6. That

KOUSHIK ROUTHU ,SURYAPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

capital gain arising is LTCG. 5. As an alternative, the Assessing Officer ought to have treated the gain on sale of land as LTCG. Page 3 of 5 ITA Nos 571 to 573 of 2020 Bachupally Laxmi and others 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

BACHUPALLY LAXMI (ALIAS ROUTHU LAXMI),SURYAPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

capital gain arising is LTCG. 5. As an alternative, the Assessing Officer ought to have treated the gain on sale of land as LTCG. Page 3 of 5 ITA Nos 571 to 573 of 2020 Bachupally Laxmi and others 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

BACHUPALLY LAXMI (ALIAS ROUTHU LAXMI),SURYAPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

capital gain arising is LTCG. 5. As an alternative, the Assessing Officer ought to have treated the gain on sale of land as LTCG. Page 3 of 5 ITA Nos 571 to 573 of 2020 Bachupally Laxmi and others 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain, under section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/-, which is sale consideration received from sale of property, without reducing the cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses, under the facts and circumstances of the case

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain, under section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/-, which is sale consideration received from sale of property, without reducing the cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses, under the facts and circumstances of the case

HARINATH REDDY DEVIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain, under section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/-, which is sale consideration received from sale of property, without reducing the cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses, under the facts and circumstances of the case

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:

Section 139(1) of the Act. 15. As observed hereinabove, the original return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 24.02.2016. Thereafter, the assessee had voluntarily filed a return of income, wherein after including the capital gains on the transfer 13 Jugender Reddy Ananthula. of land based

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gains Rs.22,12,74,800/- This has resulted into short computation of total income of Rs.22,12,74,800/- with a tax effect of Rs.10,00,31,035/-. After verification of the facts from the assessment record this aspect needs thorough verification. B) Besides the above it is also observed that deficiencies in the interest calculation u/s 234A