ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assesee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

ALLAM ADAVAIAH ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

254 of the I.T.Act on 23-12¬2016 rejecting the claim of the appellant and taxing the capital gain in the A.Y.2004-05. The Assessing Officer taxed the capital gains on the ground that the sale of the property actually took place in the previous year 2003-04 relevant to asst. year 2004-05 and rejected the oral agreement claiming

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

S HARINATH CHOWDARY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

section 50C of the Act and it was also held that the finally determined capital gains cannot exceed the capital gains originally assessed in the assessment order. 2.1. In the meantime,, the AO reopened the assessment for the A.Y.2007-08 u/s 147 of the Act by observing that the development agreement was dated 24.7.2003 and some of the terms or Clauses

SAHODHAR REDDY MUDDASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1619/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sahodhar Reddy Vs. Dy.Cit Muddasani Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aelpm9122N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Shri C Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24.09.2025 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

2(47) of the Act and that capital gains under section 45(1) of the Act arose in the year of execution of the JDA. Accordingly, the Ld. AO computed long-term capital gain of Rs.3,65,904/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. The assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 153A

VISHAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

2) of the Act was issued on 3 ITA 193/Hyd/2022 10.06.2021 and notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.10.2021. 3.2 While finalizing the assessment proceedings initiated u/s.147, the assessing officer ignored the LTCG as shown by the assessee and computed the income as income from other sources. Although, the Income declared by the assessee

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MADINENI SITARAMAIAH, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Us:

gain is liable to be quashed. The appellant has relied upon various judicial pronouncements. These 4 additional grounds of appeal are taken up for adjudication together. The reasons for which the case was picked up for limited scrutiny are as follows: “Reasons: Large payments made u/s 194C to persons who have not filed return of income. The assessee has shown

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital The shareholders have their Directors for the regulation and management of the Corporation Such a Corporation set up by the shareholders carries on business and is intended for making profits When profits are earned by such a Corporation they are distributed to shareholders by way of dividends or kept in reserve funds In the present case, these attributes

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

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

2(14) wherein property shall not be included in the definition of capital asset. We have also observed that CBDT own circulars bearing 471 dated 15.10.1986 and 672 dated 16.12.1993 are relevant, wherein allotment of flat under self financing scheme is held to be construction for the purposes of capital gains. Thus, in our considered view the AO rightly allowed

NATAKARI GOPAL ,MEDAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08 Natakari Gopal, Medak Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Sangareddy Pan – Ajupn 1204C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/11/2021

254 on 31.03.2016, by making the addition of Rs. 8,25,000/- on account of long term capital gains by observing in the assessment order as under: 2.2 Regarding the arriving sale price: The assessee vide letter dated 03-122008 filed in this office on 04-12-2008 :- 4 -: Sri Natakari Gopal, Hyd. has stated that he has received Rs.11