NEMI CHAND,GUDUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUDUR

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order 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 Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain whereas AO has treated sale proceeds as unexplained credit and business receipts without prejudice. Since the deed have been submitted by the appellant the addition on account of unexplained credit is deleted. Regarding whether the sale is business or not the deed submitted were analysed. The following points are noted as below: (1) There were 34 sellers mentioned

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

capital gains tax: It is an undisputed position that respondent assessee is an investment company and had invested by purchasing a substantial number of shares and thereby securing right to management. Possibility of sale of shares by private placement etc. cannot be ruled out and is not all improbability. Dividend may or may not be declared. Dividend is declared

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

capital gains tax: It\nis an undisputed position that respondent assessee is an investment company\nand had invested by purchasing a substantial number of shares and thereby\nsecuring right to management. Possibility of sale of shares by private\nplacement etc. cannot be ruled out and is not all improbability. Dividend may or\nmay not be declared. Dividend is declared

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

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 of MAT and once it has been I.T.A. No. 35/Hyd/2016 :- 3 -: pointed out that

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

BIO TECH PHARMA (P) LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2012-13 Bio Tech Pharma (P) Limited, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle-1(2), Pan: Aaacb 8962 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar Revenue By: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/10/2020

section of the Act is extracted hereinbelow for reference:- “74 (1) Where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head "Capital gains" is a loss to the assessee , the whole loss shall, subject to the other provisions of this chapter, be carried forward to the following assessment year

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the facts and circumstance of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that

PVR LIMITED AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTERST OF SPI CINEMA PRIVATE LIMITED ,GURGAON vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

capital gains while the same was never transferred as part of the slump sale. 4. The learned CIT has erred by failing to appreciate that even in a case where the liability is included as part of the net worth of the undertaking, the settlement of the same shall not form part of the consideration received by the buyer

NAGI REDDY KONDAKALLA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

section 147 of I T Act without considering the contentions of the appellant. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. 5) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the transaction was sham transaction without any sale consideration and out to have held that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 234C. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned supra and all consequential relief thereto. The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant herein are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craws leave to add to and/ or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 234C. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned supra and all consequential relief thereto. The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant herein are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craws leave to add to and/ or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

234C of the Act with reference to the tax due on the returned income as declared in the income-tax return and not on assessed income. 27. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not granting credit of DDT paid by the Appellant on the dividends distributed

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

234C of the Act with reference to the tax due on the returned income as declared in the income-tax return and not on assessed income. 27. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not granting credit of DDT paid by the Appellant on the dividends distributed

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234C

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234C