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.

3. The reasons recorded if any has no nexus with the income escaping assessment and therefore the entire re-assessment proceedings are invalid, bad in law and therefore the re-assessment proceedings must be quashed. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that in the reasons recorded the monetary limit of income escaping assessment not having been specified

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.

3. The reasons recorded if any has no nexus with the income escaping assessment and therefore the entire re-assessment proceedings are invalid, bad in law and therefore the re-assessment proceedings must be quashed. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that in the reasons recorded the monetary limit of income escaping assessment not having been specified

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

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

capital gains disregarding the settled law that under the I.T. Act real income and not merely hypothetical income is taxable. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground of appeal relating to charging of interest u/s 234B overlooking the fact that the AO charged interest u/s 234B without applying the provisions of section 234B(3

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

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

capital gains disregarding the settled law that under the I.T. Act real income and not merely hypothetical income is taxable. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground of appeal relating to charging of interest u/s 234B overlooking the fact that the AO charged interest u/s 234B without applying the provisions of section 234B(3

R. SUBBA LAXMI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that approvals were granted on 27-03-2008 and deemed possession as per the terms of agreement was only after the permissions were obtained. Moreover, the supplementary agreement was entered which is also acknowledged by the AO, was executed on 09-05-2008 registered as Document No. 3542/2008

JILLELA DASARATHA REDDY, REP BY GPA HOLDER, J PEDDA VENKATA REDDY , HYDERABAD ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that approvals were granted on 27-03-2008 and deemed possession as per the terms of agreement was only after the permissions were obtained. Moreover, the supplementary agreement was entered which is also acknowledged by the AO, was executed on 09-05-2008 registered as Document No. 3542/2008

VISWANATHA REDDY POTHAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that approvals were granted on 27-03-2008 and deemed possession as per the terms of agreement was only after the permissions were obtained. Moreover, the supplementary agreement was entered which is also acknowledged by the AO, was executed on 09-05-2008 registered as Document No. 3542/2008

KHAMBHAMPATI JAYALAKSHMI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that approvals were granted on 27-03-2008 and deemed possession as per the terms of agreement was only after the permissions were obtained. Moreover, the supplementary agreement was entered which is also acknowledged by the AO, was executed on 09-05-2008 registered as Document No. 3542/2008

M.S. LAKSHMI BAI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that approvals were granted on 27-03-2008 and deemed possession as per the terms of agreement was only after the permissions were obtained. Moreover, the supplementary agreement was entered which is also acknowledged by the AO, was executed on 09-05-2008 registered as Document No. 3542/2008

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

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Capital Gains. (9) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has erred in not giving the indexation benefits provided for sale of immoveable property u/s 48 of the Income tax Act, 1961. (10) Without prejudice to the above grounds, Ld. AO has charged interest under section 234B and 234C despite the TDS Amount being sufficient to cover the entire

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

234B. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the permission of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (A)-11." 4. During the appellate proceedings Sri. P. Samba Murthy, CA appeared and filed written submissions. Though the appellant has raised as many as 6 grounds, there is only one issue i.e addition of Rs.11

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

234B. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the permission of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (A)-11." 4. During the appellate proceedings Sri. P. Samba Murthy, CA appeared and filed written submissions. Though the appellant has raised as many as 6 grounds, there is only one issue i.e addition of Rs.11

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