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

Capital Gains scheme it was not utilized for the purposes for which the amounts were deposited in to it. It is clearly evident from the information produced and returns of income filed that the assessee wants to take shelter from taxation as per the provisions of Section 54F

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

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 548, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB,54F

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. KESAVA KUMAR KUNAPUREDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

54F of the Act for Rs. 7,33,96,000/- on the ground that, the assessee has failed to invest unutilized amount of capital gain derived from sale of property in the Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme on or before filing of return of income under Section

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

gain needs to be withdrawn in terms of section 54F(3) of the Act, because of sale of 3 flats within 3 years from the date of acquisition, then the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act, against long-term capital

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

section 54F being a beneficial provision\nhas to be construed liberally in various judicial precedents it has\nbeen held that the condition precedent for claiming benefit under\nsection 54P is only that the capital gain

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

capital gain tax had not been utilized for purpose of construction of new house nor were unutilized amounts deposited in notified bank accounts in terms of Section 54F

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. VENKATARAMANA REDDY KATPALLI , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 1799/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Vs. Sri Venkataramana Reddy Of Income Tax, Katpalli, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Adopk7258H] अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

capital gain, by taking the value of such plots as on the date of conversion as the cost of acquisition and worked out the income after allowing the indexed cost of acquisition. Assessee also claimed deduction under section 54F

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MALAYADRI LAXMI NARASIMHAM MULLAPATI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section. 54F clearly restricts the exemption to sale proceedings of one asset for investment in one residential house.” 9.1. The sum and substance of the submissions of the ld.DR is that once the assessee sold three long term capital assets and capital gain

NAVEEN KUMAR MUSINIPALLY,USA vs. ADIT (INT-TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee partly allowed

capital gains tax for AY 2016-2017 was not leviable. The Tribunal also ruled that the challenge to the AO's jurisdiction was not sustainable as the assessee had participated in the proceedings without objection.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "153C", "144C(3)", "127", "2(47)", "2(47)(v)", "53A", "234A", "132", "142(1)", "143(2)", "124(3)(a)", "54F

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

section 54F of the Act, therefore, no income was liable to be brought to tax in his hands under the head “Capital gains

RAVI KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.167/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Adopk6597R] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.Srinivas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee, An Individual Entered Into A Development Agreement Cum General Power Of Attorney Vide Document Number 560/2011 Dated 24.03.2011 With M/S Gayathri Construction Company For Joint Development Of A Property. The Assessee Had Not Disclosed The Transaction In His Return Of Income. Therefore, The Assessment

54F of the Act for reinvestment of capital gains for purchase of new residential house property. In response, the assessee had furnished copies of development agreement along with photocopies of building. The Assessing Officer, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of provisions of section

MADHU KUMAR PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT, ( INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

capital gains. In the first appeal the entire sum of Rs.6,77,04,992/- was allowed as deduction u/s.54F of the Act. On Second Appeal the a Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 21/07/2022, restored the matter to the files of learned CIT(A) to examine the eligibility of deduction under section 54F

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

section 54F insofar the same pertained to the short-term capital gains of 5 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO Rs.16

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

gain shall be chargeable to income tax as income of the previous year, in which the certificate of completion for the whole or part of the project is issued by the competent authority. Further, it is provided that for the purpose of section 48, the stamp duty value on the date of issue of said certificate, of his share, being

NARSI REDDY KOMATIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. SRIG. SANTOSH KUMAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

gain shall be chargeable to income tax as income of the previous year, in which the certificate of completion for the whole or part of the project is issued by the competent authority. Further, it is provided that for the purpose of section 48, the stamp duty value on the date of issue of said certificate, of his share, being

RATANLAL 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)

54F. He verified from the assessment record, that the assessee has sold the flats bearing Nos. 103, 203, 204, 205, 206, 303 & 304 without holding them for minimum period of three years from the date of acquisition. According to him, the assessee’s act of such sale within three years requires the capital gains of Rs.1

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)

54F. He verified from the assessment record, that the assessee has sold the flats bearing Nos. 103, 203, 204, 205, 206, 303 & 304 without holding them for minimum period of three years from the date of acquisition. According to him, the assessee’s act of such sale within three years requires the capital gains of Rs.1

MADHU 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)

54F. He verified from the assessment record, that the assessee has sold the flats bearing Nos. 103, 203, 204, 205, 206, 303 & 304 without holding them for minimum period of three years from the date of acquisition. According to him, the assessee’s act of such sale within three years requires the capital gains of Rs.1