NETMATRIX CROP CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

263 of the Act, dated 10.02.2025, has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of lower authorities, and the material available on record. 8. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., whether or not the claim of the assessee company

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 2(47)(v) of the Act and "income from capital gains was assessable for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued in the background of these facts. 2.2 The assessee filed a letter on 09-03-2016 stating that with an intention to do business, the land in question was converted into stock

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)

263 of the Act. Therefore, by taking note of the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the A.O. has not carried out verification with regard to the income declared by the assessee under the head Capital Gains, has set aside the assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B

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

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

2 to section 263 has given power to the PCIT to revise the assessment order, if the PCIT satisfies that the order is passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made, but such conclusion can be drawn only on the basis of reasons given by the Ld.PCIT, to prove that because of erroneous order passed

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

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

2. The Ld. Principal CIT, Tirupati erred in invoking the revisionary jurisdiction under Sec 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by stating that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Assessment order passed by the Assessing officer does not satisfy the statutory twin conditions prescribed under section 263

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

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain tax for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the difference amounting to Rs. 16/- per share was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee with regard to valuation of share is not correct and hence

N JAIVEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain tax for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the difference amounting to Rs. 16/- per share was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee with regard to valuation of share is not correct and hence

K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain tax for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the difference amounting to Rs. 16/- per share was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee with regard to valuation of share is not correct and hence

K LAXMA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

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

capital gain tax for the A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the difference amounting to Rs. 16/- per share was to be assessed in the hands of the assessee as envisaged in section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the objection raised by the assessee with regard to valuation of share is not correct and hence

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

capital gain and income from other sources aggregating to Rs 8,54,52,625 (2466759+82985866) is not in order and should be brought to tax. Accordingly, the JAO submitted a proposal u/s 263 through proper channel on 04.03.2024. 5. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT has observed that M/s Flex Developers Pvt. Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the assessee company

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

capital gain and income from other sources aggregating to Rs.8,54,52,625/-. After considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the Ld. PCIT concluded that both the issues were not examined by the Ld. AO during scrutiny assessment, hence treated the order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, vide order

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

section 263 Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the case of Ahmed Alam Khan (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2015-16, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. It could be seen from the record that there is a delay of 258 days in preferring this appeal and the reason attributed for the delay in filing the appeal

ACIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. RANGAREDDY DIST JUDL EMPLOYEE MUTUALLY AIDED CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

capital does not form\npart of profit. Further, without prejudice, even if the said interest is added back, the\nresultant increase in the business profit will again qualify for deduction u/s 80P of the\nAct and consequently will have no change in main tax effect. In my consideration\nthere is force in the submission and merit in the explanation

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 45(2) and Sec.2(47)(iv) are applicable and as the capital assets have been converted into stock-in-trade, the loss arising therefrom is ‘capital loss’ and it cannot be allowed as business loss. Since, the AO had allowed the business loss, she held the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

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 for taxation and not claimed any exempt income u/secs.10(34) and 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Once there is no exemption of any income, then, expenses relatable to said income should be allowed in total. The learned PCIT, without appreciating these facts, has simply set-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

ROCKSALT INTERACTIVE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under subsection (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed