KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 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 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain (LTCG) arising therefrom under section 10(38) of the Act). For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in ITTA No.154 of 2022, dated 09/01/2024, wherein the following substantial questions of law on the aforesaid issue had been admitted as under: “The appeal is admitted

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

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

Gain\n(LTCG). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that\nas Village: Manchirevula falls within Rajendranagar Revenue\nMandal, therefore, it could not have been taken as a part and\nparcel of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The Ld. AR submitted\nthat \"Rajendranagar” is also one of the Municipal Corporation.\nElaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gains from the sale of the said 11 independent houses and 7 plots in the respective AYs from AY 2011-12 to AY 2015-16, in the Returns filed u/s,153A. The detailed statement showing the year wise sales with regard to the 11 independent houses and 7 plots, AY wise, was the Assessing Officer, for examination and report

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital gains from the sale of the said 11 independent houses and 7 plots in the respective AYs from AY 2011-12 to AY 2015-16, in the Returns filed u/s,153A. The detailed statement showing the year wise sales with regard to the 11 independent houses and 7 plots, AY wise, was the Assessing Officer, for examination and report

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

248 ITR 449) 11. The assessee had not offered any explanation as to why interest earned on ICDs and capitalized should not be taxed. The assessee has not explained the same. Under any circumstances, and in any form or substance, the same is taxable u/s 55 of IT Act, as 'Income from other sources'. 12. In the light of foregoing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

248 ITR 449) 11. The assessee had not offered any explanation as to why interest earned on ICDs and capitalized should not be taxed. The assessee has not explained the same. Under any circumstances, and in any form or substance, the same is taxable u/s 55 of IT Act, as 'Income from other sources'. 12. In the light of foregoing

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

capital gains worked out to Rs. 1,98,26,085/-. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 1,96,40,000 was claimed as deduction u/s 54, comprising of Rs. 90,40,000/- towards purchase of house property and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards cost of addition works undertaken. 4.1 To find the veracity of the claim

K. BALA VISHNU RAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

capital gains worked out to Rs. 1,98,26,085/-. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 1,96,40,000 was claimed as deduction u/s 54, comprising of Rs. 90,40,000/- towards purchase of house property and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards cost of addition works undertaken. 4.1 To find the veracity of the claim

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

Capital Gain as the income assessable u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. 7) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered all the other grounds of appeal before deciding the appeal ex-parte. 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. 21. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income-tax authorities have approached the matter 23 1120/Hyd/2017 and others KSK Energy Company Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. 21. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income-tax authorities have approached the matter 23 1120/Hyd/2017 and others KSK Energy Company Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. 21. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income-tax authorities have approached the matter 23 1120/Hyd/2017 and others KSK Energy Company Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

gains", and this has been the consistent view of this Court. 21. In our opinion, the High Court in the impugned judgment, as well as the Tribunal and the Income-tax authorities have approached the matter 23 1120/Hyd/2017 and others KSK Energy Company Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. from an erroneous angle. In the present case, the assessee borrowed the fund from

B.M. LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS, ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

capital gains on the said property. He submitted that these reasons themselves show that there is no application of mind by the AO to the documents on record since the assessee has filed the return of income. Further, he submitted that the alleged notice u/s.148 of the Act dt.26-03- 2014 was never served on the assessee. He referred to Page

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

gaining any goodwill. According to him, the payment made to Sr. Managers cannot be considered for deduction from the asset value. With regard to debt, withholdings and deductions also, he submitted that it is not known whether they are related to the assets or not and therefore, the valuation of the goodwill suffers from serious flaws, because the payments which

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

gaining any goodwill. According to him, the payment made to Sr. Managers cannot be considered for deduction from the asset value. With regard to debt, withholdings and deductions also, he submitted that it is not known whether they are related to the assets or not and therefore, the valuation of the goodwill suffers from serious flaws, because the payments which

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

capital gains arising on sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.2,00,76,000/- paid to the non- resident. Since, the payment of sale consideration of Rs.2,00,76,000/- paid to Smt. Vuchuru Krupamayi Reddy, a non resident is chargeable to tax in India and since the assessee has failed to discharge his obligation to deduct

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

capital gains arising on sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.2,00,76,000/- paid to the non- resident. Since, the payment of sale consideration of Rs.2,00,76,000/- paid to Smt. Vuchuru Krupamayi Reddy, a non resident is chargeable to tax in India and since the assessee has failed to discharge his obligation to deduct