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

6 and 7 of the assessee's appeal is addition towards short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain from sale of property. 7.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold various properties as reported in Form 26AS, however, not admitted any capital gain in the return of income filed

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

6 and 7 of the assessee's appeal is addition towards short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain from sale of property. 7.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold various properties as reported in Form 26AS, however, not admitted any capital gain in the return of income filed

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

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

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

6 and 7 of the assessee's appeal is addition towards short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain from sale of property. 7.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold various properties as reported in Form 26AS, however, not admitted any capital gain in the return of income filed

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

6 and 7 of the assessee's appeal is addition towards short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain from sale of property. 7.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold various properties as reported in Form 26AS, however, not admitted any capital gain in the return of income filed

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

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

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

6 and 7 of the assessee's appeal is addition towards short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain from sale of property. 7.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold various properties as reported in Form 26AS, however, not admitted any capital gain in the return of income filed

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

6 and 7 of the assessee's appeal is addition towards short-term capital gain and long-term capital gain from sale of property. 7.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold various properties as reported in Form 26AS, however, not admitted any capital gain in the return of income filed

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

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

6(3), Hyderabad held that no capital gain arose in AY 2016-17 but capital gain arose in AY 2007-08. The revenue has to be consistent in its approach and Ld A.O failed it consider the principle of consistency on the same set of facts. 14.The Ld A.O/DRP erred in giving a finding that sharing ratio of built

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

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 6

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 6

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

6. Whether the provisions of 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

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

6. Whether the provisions of 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

RAMESH REDDY GONGALLA,UNITED STATES vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 133(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). According to the SRO, market value of such site was Rs.20,000 per sq.yd. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, valued the site of 250 sq.yds at Rs.50,00,000/- and computed the capital gains

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