OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

capital gains. From the record, which is submitted before us, the assessee has sold two ships and realized sale consideration of Rs. 14,59,08,000/-. It has worked out the profit on sale of ships as below (which is taken from the depreciation schedule as per Companies Act, refer page 12 and 32 of paper book) Sale consideration

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

capital gains. From the record, which is submitted before us, the assessee has sold two ships and realized sale consideration of Rs. 14,59,08,000/-. It has worked out the profit on sale of ships as below (which is taken from the depreciation schedule as per Companies Act, refer page 12 and 32 of paper book) Sale consideration

OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-

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

capital gains. From the record, which is submitted before us, the assessee has sold two ships and realized sale consideration of Rs. 14,59,08,000/-. It has worked out the profit on sale of ships as below (which is taken from the depreciation schedule as per Companies Act, refer page 12 and 32 of paper book) Sale consideration

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

gains arising on this transaction. But the assessee officer with out verifying the veracity of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade completed the assessment”. 4. On the basis of the comparison of the two show cause notices it was submitted that it is not open for the PCIT to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the same subject matter

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gain by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission of the assessee by the ld.AR that once the assessee had disclosed all the information to the Assessing Officer, then it is for the Assessing Officer to use his power under the Act for making the additions in the hands of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the additions

ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

capital gain by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission of the assessee by the ld.AR that once the assessee had disclosed all the information to the Assessing Officer, then it is for the Assessing Officer to use his power under the Act for making the additions in the hands of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the additions

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 gain from the consideration received for transfer of right in the property is one of the possible views, which is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court and therefore once the A.O. has taken one possible view, the learned PCIT cannot hold that, the view taken by the A.O. is incorrect unless the view taken

SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

capital gains and brought the same to tax. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of AO as far as service of notice u/s 148 is concerned. However, he granted partial relief by directing the AO to compute the LTCG by reducing the cost of acquisition along with indexation. Thus, the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs. SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

capital has been enhanced, the sundry creditors is reduced with corresponding increase in unsecured loans and decrease in the sundry debtors apparently to give on better account of himself for availing loan. 6.7 In view of the factual position as above, it is held that there are no grounds for making addition of Rs.39,93,38,544/- by the Assessing

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

capital has been enhanced, the sundry creditors is reduced with corresponding increase in unsecured loans and decrease in the sundry debtors apparently to give on better account of himself for availing loan. 6.7 In view of the factual position as above, it is held that there are no grounds for making addition of Rs.39,93,38,544/- by the Assessing

B.M. LAND DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS, ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

capital gains on the said property. He submitted that these reasons themselves show that there is no application of mind by the AO to the documents on record since the assessee has filed the return of income. Further, he submitted that the alleged notice u/s.148 of the Act dt.26-03- 2014 was never served on the assessee. He referred to Page

VIJAYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.244 & 245/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aanfv2591E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/Order

capital is genuine and from disclosed sources“. We find the Assessing Officer during the assessement proceedings issued query letters (PB page no.13 to 19) reproduced as under: Page 11 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Page 12 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises 8.1 Similarly, the Assessing Officer vide letter

VIJAYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.244 & 245/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aanfv2591E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/Order

capital is genuine and from disclosed sources“. We find the Assessing Officer during the assessement proceedings issued query letters (PB page no.13 to 19) reproduced as under: Page 11 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Page 12 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises 8.1 Similarly, the Assessing Officer vide letter

KATRAPALLY VENUMADHAV,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gain of Rs.57,75,000/- without observing the fact that the appellant Is GPA holder only but not the actual owner of the Flat sold. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer towards gross salary income earned of Rs.7

KATRAPALLY VENUMADHAV,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

capital gain of Rs.57,75,000/- without observing the fact that the appellant Is GPA holder only but not the actual owner of the Flat sold. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer towards gross salary income earned of Rs.7

ANAND BODDAPATY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He accordingly, submitted that, the order of the Assessing 6 ITA.No.375/Hyd./2025 Officer allowing exemption u/sec.54F of the Act is in accordance with law and requested the PCIT to drop the proposal for invoking provisions of sec.263 of the Act. The learned PCIT considering the facts and circumstances

MURARI SUBHA RAO,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 (Through Video Conference) Murari Subba Rao, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 13(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadpm 2285N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains account scheme of Rs. 3,05,000/-. d) Receipts for expenses incurred incidental to transfer of plots. e) Copy of sale deeds. f) Copy of purchase agreement from Aliens Developers. g) Copy of PAN Card. h) Copy of Form No. 16 Admittedly this return was not selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice

LATE S.SURESH LEGAL HEIR BY S.MAHESH ,SECUNDRABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gains to tax in the hands of his son. He applied the provisions of section 50C and brought the assessee’s share of the sale consideration to tax. 3. Aggrieved, the legal heir of the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) stating that the assessee has passed away on 14.12.2015 and the notice u/s 148 dated

SURAT LALITHA DEVI ,SAROORNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2011-12

capital gains. 3. The order of the learned CIT (A), in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not justified in holding that the service of notice u/s 148 is proper. 4. The order of the learned CIT (A) is not justified in not appreciating the claims that: Page 2 of 7 ITA No 1757 of 2019 Surat Lalitha