SUBHASH KUMAR KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.707/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afvpk8915Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 405/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Shri Bikash Kumar Asstt. C. I. T. Kedia Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan:Afapk8794E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vamshi Krishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Dated 31/01/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Page 1 Of 33

capital gain. But in this case, neither statement was supplying to the assessee nor cross examination was allowed by the learned A.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, assessee has discharged his onus and no addition can be sustained in the hands of the assessee.” 3. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that the assessee discharged his onus

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.

capital gain. But in this case, neither statement was supplying to the assessee nor cross examination was allowed by the learned A.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, assessee has discharged his onus and no addition can be sustained in the hands of the assessee.” 3. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that the assessee discharged his onus

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. K GOPAL RAJ, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY NAGARAJU, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008

K GOPAL RAJ, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CEN.CIRCLE-1(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY KISHORE, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008

SRINIVAS SHAH RADRARAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , 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.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

capital gain. But in this case, neither statement was supplying to the assessee nor 15 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju cross examination was allowed by the learned A.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, assessee has discharged his onus and no addition can be sustained in the hands of the assessee.” 3. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

capital gain and other sources being interest from Bank. The assessee filed his return of income on 8/8/2008 declaring total income of Rs.28,78,260/-. The return of income was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Later on, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 06/07/2012 for assessing

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

SUDHIR BABU CHALASANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, the assessee has furnished relevant purchase details of shares along with bank account, indicating payment through cheque, subsequent Demat account issued by M/s. Venture Capital and Corporate Investments Pvt. Ltd., GSV Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Integrated Enterprises (India) Limited showing the holding of shares right from

RAJU SURYANARAYANA ALLURI,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 45(5A) of the Act, a settled position of law has laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that capital gain

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 45(5A) of the Act, no capital gains are chargeable till date. 6. Learned DR vehemently argued that the learned Assessing Officer has given cogent reasons for not accepting the request of the assessee, to refer the matter to the DVO since the assessee did not furnish any plausible explanation making out a case for such reference and therefore

SUNITHA MALU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

section 50D of the Act and adopted its prevalent market price based on the information retrieved through the portal “The Telangana Land Registration and Stamps Department”, as per which the market value of the property was Rs. 24,242/- per sq ft. Accordingly, the AO worked out the market value of the property at Rs. 7,67,19,580/- . Thereafter

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PRAGNAPUR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the grounds Nos. 1 to 12 are partly allowed

Bench: Us:

capital gain (LTCG) on the transfer of the subject property at Rs. 19,54,22,998/-. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w section 144B of the Act, dated 21-03-2024, recomputed the total income of the assessee company at Rs. 21,68,99,368/-. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. PANYAM CEMENT & MINERAL INDUSTRIS LIMITED , NANDYAL

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Capital Gains at Rs.107,69,25,428/-. :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1039 & 1963/Hyd/2018 C.O.No.41/Hyd/2018 3. Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who deleted the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The order of the Learned CIT(Appeals

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. PANYAM CEMENTS & MINERAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NANDYAL

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Capital Gains at Rs.107,69,25,428/-. :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1039 & 1963/Hyd/2018 C.O.No.41/Hyd/2018 3. Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who deleted the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The order of the Learned CIT(Appeals