V.RAJASEKHAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

section 263 of the Act. Moreover, while issuing the show cause notice, the PCIT sought to tax the assessee for alleged capital gain

AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.791/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Amara Raja Energy & Mobility Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Tirupati – 517 520. Tirupati Pan Aabca9264E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca E Phalguna Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

section 263 of the Act, viz., (1) that the assessment order is erroneous; and (ii) that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, which are to be cumulatively satisfied. 3. The Ld. Principal CIT, Tirupati failed to conclude that the Assessment Order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Ld. Principal

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

Section 263 and, by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) held as under:\n\n9. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The provisions of Sec.263

P.ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),TIRUPATI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.Sunder Singh

section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment in residential building (4147 49,76,400 @ 1200 per sq.ft) Proportionate Exemption 26,11,406 4976400/12650000*6638190 2. The assessee has received 20 flats from the builder. As per the information collected from the builder by the AO, the cost of construction of constructed area received

P.ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),TIRUPATHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.Sunder Singh

section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment in residential building (4147 49,76,400 @ 1200 per sq.ft) Proportionate Exemption 26,11,406 4976400/12650000*6638190 2. The assessee has received 20 flats from the builder. As per the information collected from the builder by the AO, the cost of construction of constructed area received

RAJASEKHAR NAIDU GALLA,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATHI

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

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

capital gains and that there was no revenue loss. Therefore, on this point, there is no need of revision of assessment under Section 263

ASHWITHA REDDY BADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor the A

capital gains.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 263

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for\nboth the

capital gains were taxable, making Section 14A inapplicable. The PCIT failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 263.", "result

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

capital gain and income from\nother sources aggregating to Rs 8,54,52,625 (2466759+82985866) is not\nin order and should be brought to tax.\nAccordingly, the JAO submitted a proposal u/s 263 through proper\nchannel on 04.03.2024.\n5.\nAccordingly, the Ld. PCIT has observed that M/s Flex\nDevelopers Pvt. Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the assessee company,\nhad

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

Capital gains\"\nfor a number of years from 1999-2000, particularly for the asst. yrs.\n2005-06 and 2007-08 i.e. before and after the asst. yr. 2006-07 which is\nthe subject-matter of these proceedings. In view of the above, the CIT\ncannot under s. 263 interfere on an issue which has been accepted by\nthe Revenue

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

Section 263" ], "issues": "Whether the AO erred in adopting a different cost of acquisition for capital gains computation when the cost

MOHAN REDDY GADDAM,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

gains. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 133A", "Sec 147", "Sec 148", "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 263", "Sec 144", "Sec 147", "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 263", "Sec 263", "Sec 144", "Sec 263", "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 147" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer can adopt a different cost of acquisition for capital

PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI S.R.L,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT (INT,TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains\nof business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions\ncontained in Sections 30 to 43D. Section 40 provides for certain\ndisallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those\namounts are allowed generally under other sections. The\ncomputation under Section 29 is to be made under section 145 on\nthe basis of the books regularly maintained by the asses

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain from sale of investments and the same is subjected to tax. However, the 9 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 learned PCIT without verifying the relevant facts, simply invoked jurisdiction under section 263

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

capital gains when the cost had been accepted in previous assessment years and no change in facts was demonstrated. The Ld.CIT(A) incorrectly sustained the additions. Therefore, the order of Ld.CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the additions.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "133A", "147", "148", "143(3)", "263

AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

capital gains. 5. After considering the written submissions dated 04/03/2020, learned PCIT passed the impugned order under section 263 of the Act, holding

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Us:

capital gains under Section 111A of the Act. Thereafter, the AO framed the assessment vide his order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022, wherein after making an addition of Rs. 6,04,653/-, the income of the assessee company was determined at Rs. 72,89,95,223/-. 3. Subsequently, the Ld. Pr. CIT after

CHANDRA DEVI JAIN ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarappeal In Ita No. Assessee Revenue A.Y 565/Hyd/2020 Smt. Madhu Devi Income 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Tax Officer Pan:Aejpj5260Q Ward 4(2) Hyderabad 566/Hyd/2020 Shri Rajesh Kumar -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6675N 567/Hyd/2020 Shri Ratanlal Jain -Do- 2015-16 Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6676N 568/Hyd/2020 Smt.Chandra Devi -Do- 2015-16 Jain, Hyderabad Pan:Acepj6674P Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr)

Capital Gains or Rs.1,57,08,220/-. The same amount is claimed as investment U/s.54F. Such claim is held to be valid in several cases by the I.TA.T, following decision of the Madras High Court, Karnataka high Court. One such case is Coonjeevaram Krishnan. This decision is followed even by the Commissioners in appeal stage. The amendment