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

GAJANAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

5. Learned counsel’s only argument in view of the foregoing factual background is that the Assessing Officer had issued notice(s) under section 143(2) / 142(1) dt.10.07.2007 and 7.5.2017 in first round. And that he had already examined the issue of set off of loss and therefore, his action under challenge invoking 148/147 mechanism of CIT Vs. Kelvinator

SRUJITHA ANNAPAREDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

5 of 10 ITA No 253 of 2024 Surjitha Annapareddy of shares. The assessee has disclosed Long-Term Capital Gain derived from sale of shares and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee had also reported Long-Term Capital Gain derived from sale of shares in ITR filed for the impugned A.Y in Schedule

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA KAZA, , PEDAGONNURU

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

5) transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract - yes (e ) There is no stipulation in the above provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act that the possession to the transferee should be directly from the land owner.” 13. In support of his case, the learned DR relied on the following decisions

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

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

5) transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract - yes (e ) There is no stipulation in the above provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act that the possession to the transferee should be directly from the land owner.” 13. In support of his case, the learned DR relied on the following decisions

PANDA SRINIVAS,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

Capital Gains” (“LTCG") on the sale of the subject property at Rs.2,66,74,645/-. 4. Apart from that, the A.O. made an addition of Rs.1,75,947/- based on the information gathered by him from Insight Portal as the income of the assessee from “Other Sources”. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his draft assessment order u/s 144C

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

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

Capital Gain was offered in Return of Income ignoring the fact that the property was sold for the same price for which it was purchased and as result no gain or loss arose. 7) That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer of taking value fixed by Registration Authority for Stamp Duty as full value

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

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

Capital Gain was offered in Return of Income ignoring the fact that the property was sold for the same price for which it was purchased and as result no gain or loss arose. 7) That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer of taking value fixed by Registration Authority for Stamp Duty as full value

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

capital gains arising from the sale of plots out of the same land in its return of income for the relevant assessment year by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

capital gains arising from the sale of plots out of the same land in its return of income for the relevant assessment year by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

capital gains arising from the sale of plots out of the same land in its return of income for the relevant assessment year by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land

SWASTIK VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee company in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 & 1105/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17) Swastik Vegetable Oil Vs. Assistant Commissioner Products Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(1), Pan: Aadcs2224G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Company Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Dated 19.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 153C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Dated 31.05.2021, For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2016-17. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Present Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Private Limited Vs. Acit

capital gains arising from the sale of plots out of the same land in its return of income for the relevant assessment year by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. We, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, are of a firm conviction that the nexus between the seized material and the assessee’s land

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 41 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') either. Thereupon the revenue asked for and obtained the reference of the following question : CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyd. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. MEDHA SERVO DRIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 41 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') either. Thereupon the revenue asked for and obtained the reference of the following question : CO No. 23/H/2018 Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyd. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount

SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

capital gains and brought the same to tax. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO as far as service of notice u/s 148 is concerned. However, he granted partial relief by directing the AO to compute the LTCG by reducing the cost of acquisition along with indexation. Thus, the assessee

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67,93,253/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, but, as far as addition on account of LTCG is concerned, directed

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67,93,253/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, but, as far as addition on account of LTCG is concerned, directed

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67,93,253/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, but, as far as addition on account of LTCG is concerned, directed

PAPI REDDY ANKANNAGARI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

Capital Gains (“LTCG”). Thus, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,67,93,253/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions under sections 69A and 68 of the Act, but, as far as addition on account of LTCG is concerned, directed