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gain needs to be withdrawn in terms of section 54F(3) of the Act, because of sale of 3 flats within 3 years from the date of acquisition, then the assessee is entitled to claim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

RADHIKA KURRA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Radhika Kurra, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(2), Pan – Aedpk 3506Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pvss Prasad Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2021

Section 54F provides an exemption on the capital gains on sale of any long term capital asset in proportionate to the amount

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

capital gains 66,38,190 Less:Exemption under section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment

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

capital gains 66,38,190 Less:Exemption under section 54F 26,11,406 Capital Gains liable for tax 40,26,784 Investment

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

ANITHA BOBBA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

capital gains. He claimed deduction under section 54F by investing sale proceeds in acquisition of vacant plot and purchase of a residential

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. LATE SHRI IENENI SRIPATHIRAO L/R IENENI SHASHIKANT, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Late Shri Ieneni Income Tax, Sripathirao Circle – 11(1), L/R Ieneni Shashikant, Hyderabad. H.No.5-2-41/20, Seshadri Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan : Beeps2654P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 16.07.2019, In Case No.0060/2018-19/Cit(A)-5 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

section 54F deduction of the claim as under : “6. Decision: The appellant has transferred a property along with other family members, the appeals in the case of the other family members have already been decided and the appellant is also the part of the same agreement, which resulted in the accrual of capital gain

NAGA PADMAJA VANGARA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3) , HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2016-17 Smt. Naga Padmaja Vs. Income Tax Officer Vangara, Ward 11(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Afvpv8238F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. N. Swapna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.11.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-5, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Partnership & Income From Other Sources. She Filed Her Return Of Income On 24.03.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,61,600/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass With The Reasons (I) Large Cash Deposits In Savings Bank A/C & (Ii) Large Investment In Property.

capital gain with the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act 1961. The copy of Notices issued under sub section

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