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

1) Any profits or 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

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

Section 54F of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence he admitted the income received from the project as capital gains and claimed exemption u/s 54F. For all the above reasons discussed above the request of the assessee vide his letter dated 11.12 2017 received in this office on 15.12.2017 to consider the receipts from the project as capital gains

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, as per sub- section (4) of the Act. Since the assessee has failed to prove the investment of unutilized amount of capital gain in the Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme on or before the due date of filing 6 Kesava Kumar Kunapureddy of return of income under Section 139(1

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

Section 54F(1) is less than the net\nconsideration received by her on the sale of the original asset, then,\nso much of the capital gain

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

capital gain by the Assessing Officer, however, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the alternative claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54/54F of the Act on the ground that, as per the provisions of section 54F(1

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

Bench: Us:

1) in a Capital Gains Scheme account. The appellant has not utilized the capital gains arising out of the sale proceeds from the sale of property on 31/10/2015 for investment in the new asset within the due date of furnishing the return. It is to be noted that the appellant has not deposited the sale consideration or the capital gains

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 gains and allowed exemption under section 54F of the Act. We, therefore, deal with this disputed aspect in detail. 8. The entire extent of 6.55 acres which the assessee converted into stock in trade was of an extent of 1

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

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

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

54F deduction in the case of assessee, which is worked out as under: Capital gains as per the computation: Sale Indexed cost Capital gains Sl.No. Consideration of acquisition (in Rs.) in Rs. (in Rs.) 1. Site at Employees 1,30,00,000 20,74,917 1,09,25,083 Co-operative Housing Society, Guttala Begumpet, Hyderabad 2. Site at Employees

NITIN BHATIA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

capital gains of Rs.66,91,617/-. The assessee thereafter purchased a new residential house for a total consideration of Rs.4,44,00,000/- by a registered sale deed dated 24.10.2019, which is within two years from the date of transfer of the original residential house. Out of the total consideration of Rs.4,44,00,000/-, the assessee had made payments

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

capital gains for tax in Assessment Year 2009-10 as stipulated in proviso-1 of section 54F of the Act, could not be saddled with the same liability for the impugned Assessment Year as well. Ld. ClT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee deduction under section 54F of the Act for impugned Assessment Year

MAHESWARI MINING & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

54F is a beneficial provision and is applicable to an assessee when the old capital asset is replaced by a new capital asset in the form of a residential house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial provision , then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE V.Favourite Industries

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

1)(c) of the Act. However, we find that as the assessee in the present case had not established the genuineness of the transaction of sale of gold ornaments and also had failed to produce any material which would irrefutably evidence that she owned the subject jewellery, therefore, the AO had rejected the explanation of the assessee that the amount

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant denies himself liable to interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 12. In the view of the above

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.

1) of IT Act, claiming it as "Original Return" is not a valid return. Further, the assessee has not filed any revised return during the assessment proceedings declaring the long-term capital gain with the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act 1961. The copy of Notices issued under sub section

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.

54F insofar the same pertained to the short-term capital gains of 5 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO Rs.16,29,727/-. The AO while culminating the assessment, inter alia, initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s 271(1

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