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

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

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

BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

capital adjustment itself takes the impact of outstanding receivable on profitability. Accordingly no separate adjustment is warranted on outstanding receivables. 7. The Ld. AO/DRP ought to have appreciated the fact that no separate adjustment on receivables is to be made, when the principle transaction is considered to be at arm's length. 8. Without prejudice, the TPO/DRP ought to have

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

section 50C of the IT Act, and calculate income from capital gains. In response, the assessee has stated as under: "The land of Acres 5.27 guntas sold to M/s V.K. Projects Pvt. Ltd. was situated in the TL (Full Tank Level), Government treated water Body at Durgomcheruvu, Madhapur. 14 ITA.No.154/Hyd./2021 This was not noticed

MIRYALA EXPORTS AND IMPORTS P LTD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 413/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Miryala Exports & Vs. Income Tax Officer Imports (P) Ltd Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccm9283E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2024 आदेश/Order

section Page 2 of 7 ITA No 413 of 2024 Miryala Exports and Imports P Ltd 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 considered assessee’s share at 1/7th of the total consideration and computed the Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs.7,14,286/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT (A) but could not succeed

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

254 (SC), observed that, gain or loss on 6 ITA.No.1030/Hyd./2024 forex monitory items as on the balance date, should be accounted at the prevailing exchange rate and any difference in liability should be recognised as income or expenses in terms of AS-11 issued by the ICAI. The learned CIT(A) took support from the decision of ITAT

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake; it has accordingly rectified its order