ARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

TARUN KUMAR GOYAL ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)2, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain tax had not been utilized for purpose of construction of new house nor were unutilized amounts deposited in notified bank accounts in terms of Section 54F(4) before filing return of income, assessing officer rightly computed deduction U/s. 54F, restricting exemption U/s. 54F proportionately to amount invested. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

capital gain of Rs.17,63,438/- and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 23/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,63,438/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and such appeal has been filed on 16/05/2023. During the course

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

capital gain of Rs.17,63,438/- and completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 23/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,63,438/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and such appeal has been filed on 16/05/2023. During the course

DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.84,610/- was disallowed and added back. 7. Disallowance of ROC Charges paid for increase in authorized share capital: 7.1 The AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.10,02,600/- to Profit & Loss account towards Registration 6 I.T.A. No. 1352/Hyd/14

NIMMATOORI SULOCHANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital 8 ITA.Nos.602 & 603/Hyd./2025 gains was made during the assessment proceedings too. The Jt./Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad further noted that, the Assessing Officer at para 8.4 of the assessment order categorically rebutted the claim with the assertion that, the said villages are urban areas as they are a part of Hyderabad Metropolitan Region notified

NIMMATOORI YASHODA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

capital 8 ITA.Nos.602 & 603/Hyd./2025 gains was made during the assessment proceedings too. The Jt./Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad further noted that, the Assessing Officer at para 8.4 of the assessment order categorically rebutted the claim with the assertion that, the said villages are urban areas as they are a part of Hyderabad Metropolitan Region notified

SRI. BOBBA PRASAD,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and this technical ground, he ought to have held that the addition made by the Ld Assessing Officer under the head 'Capital Gains' for the Assessment Year under review, viz., AY 2009-10 is DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND VOID AB-INITIO; 4. Having held emphatically at para

LATE RAJESHAM RAGI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Vs. Pin – 505 001. Telangana. Karimnagar. Pan Aaxpr4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Rv Nageshwar Sharma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

239 (SC); 5. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); 7.1. The learned DR submitted that when the assessee has received the payment of Rs.5 lakhs under the said Development Agreement, then this transaction of handing- over the possession of the land in question against the consideration constitute ‘transfer of immovable property’. 8. We have considered the rival

THE KRANTHI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. P. Madhavi Devia.Y: 2013-14

gain. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us 29. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we are not inclined to interfere in conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A). The reason is simple. There is no dispute that, in terms of the proviso to Section 2 (42A), a listed

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

239 ITR 775 (SC). The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD vs. SHRILEKHA FINANCIAL SERVICES (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

gain. 8.11. The ld. AR met each of the aforesaid reasoning in the following manner:- (i) There cannot be a gift of capital contribution by a partner to the firm. If it was gift, it represents capital receipt and cannot become income. (ii) If assessee was a conduit to PEL as held by the ld. AO, then

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD vs. SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRILEKHA FINANCIAL SERVICES INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUEBTLY M/S SHRILEKHA BUSINESS CONSULTANCY ), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy Ward – 4(5) Pvt. Ltd., (Pan No.Aaycs0021L) Hyderabad (Formerly M/S. Shrilekha Financial Services Initially & Subsequently M/S. Shrilekha Business Consultancy, Both Are With Pan:Aacfs9088A 3-6-478, Iv Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. Aacfs9088A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

gain. 8.11. The ld. AR met each of the aforesaid reasoning in the following manner:- (i) There cannot be a gift of capital contribution by a partner to the firm. If it was gift, it represents capital receipt and cannot become income. (ii) If assessee was a conduit to PEL as held by the ld. AO, then

NIMMATOORI RAMESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD is incorrect. Learned Sr. AR further referring to certain judicial precedents including decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the case of Rakesh Ganapathy vs., JCIT [2025] 170 taxman.com 239 [ITAT-Bangalore] submitted 15 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 that, the facts in the above case are distinguishable from

LATE NIMMATOORI RAJABABU L/R BY ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD is incorrect. Learned Sr. AR further referring to certain judicial precedents including decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the case of Rakesh Ganapathy vs., JCIT [2025] 170 taxman.com 239 [ITAT-Bangalore] submitted 15 ITA.Nos.594, 596 & 597 /Hyd./2025 that, the facts in the above case are distinguishable from

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

239 ITR 297) has laid down the principle of first degree which has to be applied to determine whether the income can be eligible for deduction u/s 10B. Since there are series of decisions where the matter has travelled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court where it has been held that foreign exchange fluctuation gain, provisions written back and interest

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

Capital Gains Account Scheme with Andhra Bank MLA’s colony Branch, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and also claimed exemption U/s. 54 in the return filed for the AY 2012-13. We are herewith enclosing the relevant evidence in support of the same. We would like to submit that the provisions of section 195 should be read in conjunction with