BIKASH 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

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

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

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

RAMA RAO GOTTUMUKKALA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 8 -: clarifying it was submitted that

KONDAL RAO KURMYAGARI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 8 -: clarifying it was submitted that

M.S. LAKSHMI BAI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

R. SUBBA LAXMI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

JILLELA DASARATHA REDDY, REP BY GPA HOLDER, J PEDDA VENKATA REDDY , HYDERABAD ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

KHAMBHAMPATI JAYALAKSHMI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

VISWANATHA REDDY POTHAM, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

Section 2(47)(v). In addition to that, it was also contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that when the development agreement itself was cancelled or rescinded there cannot be any capital gain involved in the transaction and that no real income had accrued to assessee. Further it was submitted that there was no attempt to develop

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

G BHOOPATHI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

260 ITR 491) (Bom); (ii) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (Advance Ruling) (294 ITR 196); (iii) Dr.T.Achutha Rao Vs. ACIT (106 ITD 388) (Hyd); (iv) K.Jeelani Basha Vs. CIT (256 ITR 0282) (Mad-HC); :- 3 -: I.T.A. No. 1951/Hyd/2017 2.1. AO held that transfer took place in the financial year relevant to AY. 2009-10 and worked out the capital gains as under

T. JAYA PRAKASH (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. NAGRAJ (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section

T. RAJESWAR RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

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

capital gains arises in the case of development agreement in the year of execution of the development agreement and not in the year of handing over possession of the property as per subsection (1) of section 45 8 I.T.A. No. 1583 /Hyd/2017 and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section