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

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

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 8 -: clarifying it was submitted that

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

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

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

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

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

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

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

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

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

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

G BHOOPATHI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

249 (AP)] has considered the development agreement of similar nature and upheld the levy of capital gain in the year of entering into the development agreement. Ld.CIT(A) also approved the same, stating as under: “15.1 It is further seen that the municipal plan was approved and building permission was issued on 06.01.2009 which is falling in the financial year

T. JAYA PRAKASH (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. PRABHAKAR RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. NARAYANA RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. NARSIMHA RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. BALAKRISHNA (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. KASHINATH (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. NAGRAJ (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. RAJESWAR RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. RAMESH (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

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 by filing return of income for the year consideration. Further, even after reopening of the assessment, the assessee neither furnished any return of income nor explained the case. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the property sold for the year under consideration is HUF property and the assessee cannot be assessed in her individual capacity