AHMED ALAM KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Virtual Hearing) & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

54G and 54GA of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer by way of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, asked information relating to the sale consideration for computing capital gains

MOHA NARENDRA GANDHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16

54G and 54GA”. The AO observed that the assessee had received 2000 shares as gift from her father which she has sold during the year and has earned capital gain therefrom but has claimed part of the capital gain as exempt u/s 54EC and the balance of capital gain has been deposited into the capital gain a/c. The assessee

SHIVA PRASAD PENUMATSA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

54G, 54GA and 54F (as quoted in CASS reasons) etc. In response to the notices, the AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the information/clarification called for. The assessee’s submissions/ clarifications were verified by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 09-12-2016. 2.1 In response

SANJAY KUMAR SANGHI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2012-13 Sanjay Kumar Sanghi, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 12(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Afvps 5491R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/03/2022

section 263 may be quashed.” 2. The assessee has raised 8 grounds of appeal, in which, the assessee challenged the order passed by the Pr. CIT – 1, Hyderabad u/s 263 of the Act. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 26/07/2012 for AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.18

DCIT CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SURYADEVARA VENKATESWARA RAO, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains and the third addition is by denying the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54GB of the Act. 3. Insofar as this appeal is concerned, the addition made in respect of cost of construction and the deduction claimed under section 54GB(1)(iii) of the Act alone are the subject matter. At the outset, it is submitted