ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. TARA CHAND BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act are dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos.638/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 (SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 2(13) of the Act. It has not been defined in the Income-tax Act. As far as the dictionary meaning of the word 'adventure' is concerned, it implies a pecuniary risk, a venture, a commercial enterprise. The word 'venture' in its turn is defined as a commercial activity in which there is a risk of loss as well

NADELLA MUNIKANNAIAH ,TIRUPATI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 N.Dathri L/R Of Late Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1) Nadella Muni Kannaiah Tirupati C/O. Katrapati & Andhra Pradesh Associates 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1St Floor Ashok Nagar,Street No.1 Hyderabad-500 020

capital gains was accepted by the assessee. It is not a voluntary consent but due to the effort made by Department in establishing the concealment of income. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (35 taxman.com 250) and also on the decision

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 3. Learned Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has purchased 160 shares of M/s. Baviscon Vincom Pvt Ltd @ Rs.1,250/- per share on 31/03/2012 through Festino Vincom Pvt Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently. M/s. Baviscon Ltd. issued bonus shares of 79 for each share

SRUTHI RIEDL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

sections 50C, 50CA.and 50D.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee being an NRI has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2016 - 17 declaring an income of Rs.18,26,340/- towards income from house property and towards income from short term and long term capital gains and the case was processed. Thereafter, information was received

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

capital gain which is not appropriated by\nthe assessee towards the purchase of the new assets made within\none year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset\ntook place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or\nconstruction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the\nreturn of income under section

PRASHANT DEVENDRA MEHTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as ‘infructuous’

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

250 of the Act dt. 10.03.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the facts & circumstances of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

PRASHANT DEVENDRA MEHTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as ‘infructuous’

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal..”

250 of the Act dt. 10.03.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the facts & circumstances of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA VILLAS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

250 purchase from M/s. Suguni Constructions 2 Secondary 1,13,792 11,37,920 16,38,60,480 16,49,98,400 purchase from Mr Y S Jaganmohan Reddy 3 Direct subscription 5,06,892 50,68,920 72,99,24,480 73,49,93,400 from Bharathi Cements (Rs.6,600 treated as misc. charges) Total

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ALPHA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

250 purchase from M/s. Suguni Constructions 2 Secondary 1,13,792 11,37,920 16,38,60,480 16,49,98,400 purchase from Mr Y S Jaganmohan Reddy 3 Direct subscription 5,06,892 50,68,920 72,99,24,480 73,49,93,400 from Bharathi Cements (Rs.6,600 treated as misc. charges) Total

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f. 1/4/2018 whereby the capital gains arise only on the issue of certificate of completion of the project is applicable to the A.Y. i.e. 2017-18, following the doctrine of fairness.” 15. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 15.1 Ground Nos.2

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 45(5A) of the IT Act, 1961 which came into force w.e.f. 1/4/2018 whereby the capital gains arise only on the issue of certificate of completion of the project is applicable to the A.Y. i.e. 2017-18, following the doctrine of fairness.” 15. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 15.1 Ground Nos.2

GOLDGREEN LAND HOLDINGS LLP( FORMERLY GOLD GREEN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),SHANKARPALLY MANDAL, MIRZAGUDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

section 50C (2) of the Act and ignored the fact that the reference value of the land at Janwada village has drastically dropped as the subject agricultural land was located under the G.O. 111 issued by Government of Telangana. 5. Learned AR is very vehement in his submission that in spite of submitting elaborate written submissions raising various legal