ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JHANSI RANI BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

3 years. Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the computation of capital gain, in respect of the sale of land and the sale of built-up area separately. The assessee has filed separate computation for short term capital gain and long-term capital gain. The AO, on the basis of the revised computation submitted by the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. KAVYA BOPPANA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

3 years. Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the computation of capital gain, in respect of the sale of land and the sale of built-up area separately. The assessee has filed separate computation for short term capital gain and long-term capital gain. The AO, on the basis of the revised computation submitted by the assessee

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

3 years. Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the computation of capital gain, in respect of the sale of land and the sale of built-up area separately. The assessee has filed separate computation for short term capital gain and long-term capital gain. The AO, on the basis of the revised computation submitted by the assessee

SARAT GOPAL BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

3 years. Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the computation of capital gain, in respect of the sale of land and the sale of built-up area separately. The assessee has filed separate computation for short term capital gain and long-term capital gain. The AO, on the basis of the revised computation submitted by the assessee

KAVYA BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

3 years. Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the computation of capital gain, in respect of the sale of land and the sale of built-up area separately. The assessee has filed separate computation for short term capital gain and long-term capital gain. The AO, on the basis of the revised computation submitted by the assessee

TARA CHAND BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

3 years. Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the computation of capital gain, in respect of the sale of land and the sale of built-up area separately. The assessee has filed separate computation for short term capital gain and long-term capital gain. The AO, on the basis of the revised computation submitted by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 45\non the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in\nclause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of subsection\n(1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the\nhead \"Capital gains\" relating to long-term capital assets of\nthe previous year in which such residential house is\npurchased or constructed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. LAXMI GARDENS, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Capital Gains. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,76,41,296/- on account of LTCG, without appreciating the fact that as per section 45(4) of the Act, the LTCG arises in the hands of AOP on dissolution of AOP. 2 Agarwal Industries Pvt.Ltd. 3

KYORI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kyori Infrastructure Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., Ca, Hyderabad 6-3-655/2/3, Samajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.263 Of The Act Of The Pr. Cit-2, Hyderabad Dated 26.2.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Infrastructure Activity. It Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 30.9.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 27.12.2017 With The Assessed Income At Rs.15,58,050/-. P A G E 1 | 11 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 45(2) of the Act, wherever a capital asset is converted into stock in trade by an assessee, it is deemed as transfer of capital asset and capital gains on such transfer is chargeable to tax in the year in which such stock in trade is sold or otherwise transferred. As the assessee has sold the stock in trade

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

Bench: Us:

3.—For the purposes of this clause, "transfer" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (47);]” 13 Netmatrix Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. 10. We find on a careful perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 54EC of the Act, the same contemplates that where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, [“being

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital contribution of the assessee in the books of the said firm. We find the provisions of section 45(3) read as under: “45 (3) The profits or gains

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital contribution of the assessee in the books of the said firm. We find the provisions of section 45(3) read as under: “45 (3) The profits or gains

SAI TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

capital contribution of the assessee in the books of the said firm. We find the provisions of section 45(3) read as under: “45 (3) The profits or gains

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.319/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.2/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.319/Hyd/2022) A.Y 2015-16 Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain in terms of section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue in terms of our discussion given herein above. 12. The next issue that came up for our consideration is the addition towards deemed dividend

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

3 years and resultant income is Capital Gains and not Business Income in hands of appellant.” 10.1. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee namely, Vinod Narapa Reddy in ITA No.1853 to 1855/Bang/2018 dt.05.10.2020 (supra) had decided the same issue in favour of the assessee and decided the issue of long term capital gains

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

3) Where the new asset is transferred within a period of three years from\nthe date of its purchase or, as the case may be, its construction, the amount\nof capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged\nunder section 45

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 Gains" as per the provisions of section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration

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 Gains" as per the provisions of section 45 of the Act and E that the addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act towards "unexplained credit is in contravention of the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration